mwesigye herbert

LEGAL AND PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

2011-12-30T03:00:00.000-08:00

QUESTION 1
Examine the relevance of the local community action in conflict resolution in Sub-Sahara Africa and explain some of the challenges there in.
INTRODUCTION
A community is defined as a group of interacting people, possibly living in close proximity, and often refers to a group that shares some common values, and is attributed with social cohesion within a shared geographical location, generally in social units larger than a household (Barker et al. 1987).
Conflict resolution is conceptualized as the methods and processes involved in facilitating the peaceful ending of some social conflict. Often, committed group members attempt to resolve group conflicts by actively communicating information about their conflicting motives or ideologies to the rest of the group such as intentions, reasons for holding certain beliefs and by engaging in collective negotiation. Ultimately, a wide range of methods and procedures for addressing conflict exist and of course local community action is one of them (Robinson and Clifford (1974).
Local community action in conflict resolution use local actors and traditional community-based judicial and legal decision-making mechanisms to manage and resolve conflicts within or between communities. Local mechanisms aim to resolve conflicts without resorting to state-run judicial systems, police, or other external structures.
Local community negotiations in conflict can lead to ad-hoc practical agreements which keep broader inter-communal relations positive.
Additional results of local conflict management occur when actors who do not have political, social or economic stake in continuing violence come together and build a "constituency for peace." In some cases, this can undermine the perpetrators of violence, leading to the development of momentum toward peace.
Local mediation typically incorporates consensus-building based on open discussions to exchange information and clarify issues. Conflicting parties are more likely to accept guidance from these mediators than from other sources because an elder’s decision does not entail any loss of face and is backed by social pressure. The end result is, ideally, a sense of unity, shared involvement and responsibility, and dialogue among groups otherwise in conflict.
Local mechanisms intervene to resolve community disputes before they escalate to large-scale violence or to prevent a resumption of violence after a period of calm. Generally one or both parties to a dispute request intervention by an elder, the elder council, or other community member. Occasionally, elders unite and take the initiative in forming a local council to represent the community’s interests.
Community members involved in the conflict participate in the dispute resolution process. These community members can include traditional authorities, elders, chiefs, women’s organizations, local institutions and professional associations.
The elders function as a court with broad and flexible powers to interpret evidence, impose judgments, and manage the process of reconciliation. The mediator leads and channels discussion of the problem. Parties typically do not address each other, eliminating direct confrontation. Interruptions are not allowed while parties state their case. Statements are followed by open deliberation which may integrate listening to and cross-examining witnesses, the free expression of grievances, caucusing with both groups, reliance on circumstantial evidence, visiting dispute scenes, seeking opinions and views of neighbors, reviewing past cases, holding private consultations, and considering solutions.
The elders or other traditional mediators use their judgment and position of moral ascendancy to find an accepted solution. Decisions may be based on consensus within the elders’ or chiefs’ council and may be rendered on the spot. Resolution may involve forgiveness and mutual formal release of the problem, and, if necessary, the arrangement of restitution.
Also International agencies can promote local dispute resolution mechanisms to ensure that local actors participate in conflict management by partnering with existing local institutions.
External players such as humanitarian organizations, UN officials, peacekeepers and official delegations can empower local mediation groups in acknowledging their relevance, meeting with them when visiting an area and securing their input into planning, building on traditional structures for peace and conflict resolution, and using those structures in dealing with ongoing conflicts, developing a strategy for identifying conflict resolvers and peacemakers within each cultural group in the operating area, validating and empowering existing conflict resolvers, and creating opportunities for their interaction with other communities
It should be remembered that a local peace process is generally low-cost. Local efforts may be financed through community sources, or may require external, including international, support especially in the initial stage of rejuvenating such mechanisms.
There are several challenges facing community action in conflict resolution as here below presented;
First of all, the process may be time-consuming and encourage broad discussion of aspects that may seem unrelated to the central problem, as the mediator tries to situate the conflict in the disputants’ frame of reference and decide on an appropriate style and format of intervention.
Some traditional conflict mitigation efforts may be weakened by age or gender bias for example, in cases with no women elders, some women may believe that male elders are biased against women and that this will be reflected in their decisions. Indigenous, traditional authorities generally are not progressive elements of social change.
Local conflict management’s potential effectiveness is diminished where traditional authority has eroded and armed authority has increased, since these trends run counter to traditional values and ways of social organization, including those of handling conflict.
Indigenous mediation has a dynamic of its own and does not always respond positively to external prompting. Indigenous mediation requires delicate and knowledgeable management, and external actors must bring an intimate understanding of local conditions.
The process of strengthening international and regional institutions has neglected internal solutions. Conflict is inherent in society; so are mechanisms for dealing with it. The decline of traditional authority and its role in conflict mediation has contributed to the development of large-scale conflict (as in Liberia, Somalia and Sudan). In other cases, parties to broader conflicts have subverted traditional mediation mechanisms or included them in the conflict for example in Rwanda and, to a lesser extent, Burundi.
Finally High-profile peace fora financed and organized by external parties may interfere with more than assist in producing plausible settlements, especially if conducted without coordinating with local non-military leaders. At the national or international level, such efforts may require external support, such as logistical assistance, and probably should be accompanied by other actions to prevent the immediate outbreak of violence
CONCLUSION
Key authority structures of conflicting parties must be included in the process, including traditional, military, administrative, and religious leaders and those with moral authority in the community must be central to the process, educated exiles also have a role to play. while the external support should be minimal and fill gaps, taking care not to replace indigenous leadership. Hence the external assistance must take care to supplement rather than overwhelm existing local grassroots initiatives and the external actors planning to support local mediation mechanisms must bring local experience, perhaps even anthropological knowledge of the area.

REFERENCES
Adams,M. & Bradbury,M(1995): Conflict and Development: Background Paper for UNICEF/NGO Workshop. New York, NY: United Nations.
Agrawal, A., (1995): Dismantling the Divide between Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge. Development and Change.
Avruch,K(1991): Conflict Resolution: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
Barzilai, Gad. (2003): Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
Berkes, F. (1989): Co-management and the James Bay Agreement. In Cooperative Management of Local Fisheries: New Directions for Improved Management and Community Development, ed. by E. Pinkerton.
Cox, F,J.(1970): Strategies of Community Organization: A Book of Readings. Itasca, IL: F. E.
Warren, D & Brokensha,D:(1995): The Cultural Dimensions of Development. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

QUESTION 2
With specific references to northern Uganda, Discuss the practices and legal challenges of peace agreement between LRA, the government of Uganda and suggest some possible solution.
INTRODUCTION
The Lord's Resistance Army is a militant group with a syncretic Christian and traditional African religious ideology. Until it was flushed out of Uganda, the group was operating in northern Uganda, But now it has moved to South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Central Africa Republic.
The LRA was formed in 1987 and until about 2007 it was engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government. It is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the "spokesperson" of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the Holy Spirit, which the group believes can represent itself in many manifestations.
Practices and legal challenges of peace agreement between LRA, the government of Uganda;
Lasting peace for northern Uganda, which has been plagued by conflict and displacement for twenty-one years, remains a challenge. With the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) indictments issued against top leaders of the rebel Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) remains a thorny question, with the potential to derail the peace effort. Hence this poses a challenge to peace agreements between LRA and the government of Uganda.
It is a challenge in that the Rebel leaders do state that they cannot sign an agreement unless the ICC indictments are dropped. Lifting the indictments, however, poses serious concerns about the integrity of international justice. To break the deadlock, all parties should carefully consider practical approaches to provisions of the Rome Statute (the treaty constituting the ICC) that would enable suspension of the indictments.
In late December 2003, President Museveni referred the situation in northern Uganda to the newly created International Criminal Court. In July 2004, the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) officially opened an investigation, and in October 2005, the ICC issued indictments for five top LRA leaders, including Joseph Kony.
Real progress on ending the humanitarian crisis and pursuing a coherent long-term strategy for reconstruction in the north cannot take place without guarantees of peace and security. Establishing peace, however, requires difficult decisions about how to reconcile humanitarian imperatives and the unquestionable need for stability in the region with the outstanding ICC indictments.
As stated in the Rome Statute, the goal of the ICC is to prevent atrocities like war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide by ending impunity. In the statute’s Preamble, the states parties affirm that such crimes “must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured.” States also pledge in the Preamble to “reaffirm the Principles and Purposes of the Charter of the United Nations.” The UN Charter commits states to take collective measures to maintain peace and security through peaceful means when possible. This obligation is rooted in a fundamental principle to avoid the instability, atrocities, and protracted humanitarian crises war often produces.
Ideally, these international commitments to prosecute and punish serious crimes and peacefully end or prevent conflict should work hand in hand. To some extent, this scenario has occurred in northern Uganda.
In addition due to pressure from the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS), the LRA’s decision to negotiate in Juba was partially attributed to the international indictments, which initially raised rebel fears that an international force would attempt to arrest the LRA leaders and that finding safe haven would become more difficult. During the negotiations, LRA attacks in northern Uganda essentially stopped.
The involvement of the ICC strengthened discussions of justice and accountability in Uganda and within the context of the negotiations. In fact, one of the five agenda items of the talks, Agenda Item Three, specifically addresses reconciliation and accountability. The agreement on Agenda Item Three provides for formal judicial processes within Uganda to adjudicate allegations of serious human rights violations arising from the conflict. As stated in the annexure to the agreement, a special division of the High Court of Uganda would try such cases.
The agreement also provides for “a regime of alternative penalties and sanctions,” which would reflect the gravity of the crimes and promote reconciliation within communities. The parties have discussed domestic justice mechanisms because under the complementarity provisions of the Rome Statute, a state may lawfully reclaim a case begun by the ICC and try it domestically if the state is genuinely willing and able to carry out prosecution and conform to international standards of prosecution and punishment. This also meant practices and legal challenges of peace agreement between LRA, the government of Uganda simply because of suspicion of unfair trial in case the local courts were to try the rebel commanders.
The twin goals of peace and justice begin to diverge, however, when we assume that imprisonment is the only form of punishment acceptable under the Rome Statute and under international standards more generally. Therefore it was unlikely that Kony and the other ICC inductees would agree to be subjected to a judicial process which would ultimately lead to their incarceration. Consequently, imprisonment was probably not among the “alternative penalties and sanctions” envisioned in the Agenda Item Three Agreement on Reconciliation and Accountability signed by the LRA. This indeed posed a challenge to the prospects for peace in northern Uganda.
Further more, while the Rome Statute upholds the obligation to end impunity and punish perpetrators who commit terrible atrocities, the treaty also leaves room in certain provisions to deal with hard cases where a range of factors must be weighed. While these provisions could conceivably preclude international or domestic prosecution and incarceration, their careful use is nonetheless consistent with international law. The flexibility they allow also serves to uphold respect for the international justice system over the long run. Moreover, implementation of these provisions need not involve a zero-sum trade-off of justice for peace. In each instance, justice should certainly be maximized within the limitations raised by the case at hand. This kind of arrangement directly or indirectly affected the practices and legal peace agreement between LRA and the government of Uganda hence proved to be a challenge to peace agreements.
Further still according to Rome Statute, it is critical to build the ICC’s enforcement capacity. The Statute envisions an international justice system where perpetrators of major international crimes are arrested, tried, and punished with commensurate prison terms. But the enforcement challenges presented by the Uganda case suggest that expectations of what the ICC can achieve in its early stages may be too high. Insisting on unrealistic outcomes causes the victims to pay unacceptably for the challenges the international justice system currently faces. Instead, the international community should explore ways to strengthen the ICC’s enforcement capacity in ways that minimize the risks to stability and to drawing out protracted humanitarian crises. Moving forward, a more tangible international commitment to improved enforcement would counter any concerns about the integrity of international justice raised by the Uganda case.
This briefing provides a background of the conflict and ongoing attempts at peace, reflects the diverse views expressed during the consultations about justice priorities, and offers recommendations on how to move forward with a comprehensive justice plan.
Another point in place as to the practices and legal challenges of peace agreement between LRA, the government of Uganda was the Comprehensive Amnesty designed by the Uganda government whose one of its key components of justice is the Amnesty Act, which the Ugandan government enacted in 2000 as a response to popular demand to end the stalemated conflict. The amnesty granted is exceptionally broad, stating that from 1986 onward "any Ugandan who has himself of herself engaged in war or armed rebellion against the government by either participating in combat, engaging in any other criminal activity connected with the conflict, or aiding or abetting insurgents shall not be prosecuted or subjected to any form of punishment" as long as they agree to renounce their affiliation with rebel groups. This indeed also posed a challenge to the practices and legal peace agreement between LRA, the government of Uganda.

Possible solutions to practices and legal challenges of peace agreement between LRA and the government of Uganda are here below presented;
First and foremost, alternative justice mechanisms are necessary to solve the challenges highlighted above as these shall promote reconciliation and shall include traditional justice processes, alternative sentences, reparations, and any other formal institutions or mechanisms.
Secondly, the parties in the conflict need to acknowledge the need for an overarching justice framework that will provide for the exercise of formal criminal jurisdiction, and for the adoption and recognition of complementary alternative justice mechanisms hence they need to promote appropriate reconciliation mechanisms to address issues arising from within or outside Uganda with respect to the conflict.
Further more the removal of the LRA/LRM from the list of Terrorist Organizations under the Anti-Terrorism Act of Uganda upon the LRA/LRM abandoning rebellion, ceasing fire, and submitting its members to the process of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration can be a solution as well.
Finally, alternative penalties and sanctions are necessary to solve the challenges. Such alternatives need to reflect the gravity of the crimes or violations, promote reconciliation between individuals and within communities, promote the rehabilitation of offenders, take into account an individual's admissions or other cooperation with proceedings and require perpetrators to make reparations to victims.
CONCLUSION
Conclusively, Uganda has institutions and mechanisms, customs and usages as provided for and recognized under national laws, capable of addressing the crimes and human rights violations committed during the LRA conflict. Therefore such mechanisms can solve the legal and peace challenges mentioned in this presentation as this will ensure modifications required within the national legal system to ensure a more effective and integrated justice to deal with the rebels of LRA domestically.
REFERENCES
Briggs, Jimmie (2005): Innocents Lost: When Child Soldiers Go to War. Basic Books.

Green, Matthew (2008): The Wizard of the Nile: The Hunt for Africa's Most Wanted. Portobello Books.

Singer, P, W. (2006): Children at War. University of California Press.

Vlassenroot, K. (2010): The Lord's Resistance Army: Myth and Reality. Zed Books Ltd..

BBC News (23 January 2008): Uganda's LRA confirm Otti death. Retrieved 20 Noember 2011.

Kavanagh, M J. (2010): "Obama Administration Asks for Funds to Boost Uganda's Fight Against Rebels". Bloomberg. Retrieved 19/11/2011.

"Obama Sending 100 Armed Advisers to Africa to Help Fight Renegade Group". New York Times. 2011-10-14. Retrieved 15/11/2011

http://northernuganda.usvpp.gov/peacerec2.html/17/11/2011
http://jicj.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/4/801.abstract/17/11/2011
http://resolver.scholarsportal.info/resolve/19/11/2011

QUESTION 3
Explain the objectives of African union and discuss why AU is unable to enforce and promote legal and practical peace.

INTRODUCTION
The African Union (abbreviated AU) is a union consisting of 54 African states. The only African state not in the AU is Morocco. Established on 9 July 2002, the AU was formed as a successor to the Organization of African Unity (OAU). The most important decisions of the AU are made by the Assembly of the African Union, a semi-annual meeting of the heads of state and government of its member states. The AU's secretariat, the African Union Commission, is based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
The African Union is made up of both political and administrative bodies. The highest decision-making organ is the Assembly of the African Union, made up of all the heads of state or government of member states of the AU. Currently the Assembly is chaired by Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, leader of Equatorial Guinea, elected at the tenth ordinary meeting of the Assembly in January 2011. The AU also has a representative body, the Pan African Parliament, which consists of 265 members elected by the national parliaments of the AU member states.
Other political institutions of the AU include;
• The Executive Council, made up of foreign ministers, which prepares decisions for the Assembly;
• The Permanent Representatives Committee, made up of the ambassadors to Addis Ababa of AU member states; and
• The Economic, Social, and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC), a civil society consultative body.
.

The following are objectives of the African Union (AU);
 Achieve greater unity and solidarity between the African counties and the peoples of Africa
 Defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its Member States
 Accelerate the political and socio-economic integration of the continent;
 Promote and defend African common positions on issues of interest to the continent
 Encourage international cooperation, taking due account of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
 Promote peace, security, and stability on the continent
 Promote democratic principles and institutions, popular participation and good governance
 Promote and protect human and peoples' rights in accordance with the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and other relevant human rights instruments
 Establish the necessary conditions which enable the continent to play its rightful role in the global economy and in international negotiations
 Promote sustainable development at the economic, social and cultural levels as well as the integration of African economies
 Promote cooperation in all fields of human activity to raise the living standards of African peoples
 Coordinate and harmonize policies between existing and future Regional Economic Communities for the gradual attainment of the objectives of the Union
 Advance the development of the continent by promoting research in all fields, in particular in science and technology
 Work with relevant international partners in the eradication of preventable diseases and the promotion of good health on the continent
The African Union aims range from promoting the advancement of science and technology to raising the living standards of Africa’s citizens.
African Union is unable to enforce and promote legal and practical peace due to various factors as here under presented;
First and foremost, the success of the African Union depends primarily on the ability to learn from the failures of the Organization of African States (OAU), one of which was the inability of the Organization to foster peace within its own membership.
The Organization of African States, which was created in 1963, was not able, although outlined within its own charter to stop wars between its member states, nor was it able to prevent genocidal violence such as in Rwanda in 1994. This historical factor in still present in Africa and makes AU unable to effectively enforce legal and practical peace.
Secondly, according to the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), the defining feature of intervention is that it is conducted without the consent of the target state. A request for assistance by a recognized government therefore falls outside of this definition. The right of intervention by international or regional organizations in the internal affairs of member states therefore contradicts the traditional concept of state sovereignty on which the UN and the present AU charters are based.
Thirdly, the African Union Constitutive Act Article 4(j) provides that for the “right of Member States to request intervention from the Union in order to restore peace and security.” This goes far beyond the ‘just cause’ threshold defined by the ICISS.

Further more, on the face of it, the act provides much leeway in this regard, for example, Article 4(m) provides for “respect for democratic principles, human rights, the rule of law and good governance”. Article 4(o) provides for “respect for the sanctity of human life, condemnation and rejection of impunity and political assassination, acts of terrorism and subversive activities”. Article 4(p) provides for the “condemnation and rejection of unconstitutional changes of government”.
Also basing on the above sweeping provisions, and others that create the lack of clarity in the act that has now led to the development of a Protocol relating to the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution to be submitted to African heads of state in Durban for their approval. The Protocol provides for the establishment of a completely revamped Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution “which shall be a collective security and early-warning arrangement to facilitate timely and efficient response to conflict and crisis situations in Africa”.8 This will replace the existing structure authorized through the 1993 Cairo Declaration on the establishment of the AU Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution.

Other considerations in the development of the Protocol are, of course, the intense sense of competition evident in Addis Ababa from the overlap on peace and security issues with the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD A second contention is the extent to which the peer review mechanism, the sole remaining preserve of the unit responsible for the Conference on Security, Stability, Development and Co-operation (CSSDCA) within the AU, is now duplicated by the proposed NEPAD peer review mechanism hence such confusion does help African Union to effectively enforce and promote legal and practical peace.

The concept of state sovereignty, on which the international system and the AU are founded, presumes that each state has the power, authority and competence to govern its territory. For many African states, however, sovereignty is a legal fiction that is not matched by governance and administrative capacity. Some analysts go so far as to argue that such states violate the prerequisite for UN membership contained in Article 4(1) of the UN Charter, that members must be “able and willing to carry out the obligations”5 of the organization. This indeed makes it difficult for African Union to effectively enforce and promote legal and practical peace.
On the other hand, the AU itself derives its authority from state actors, and is built on the presumption of their sovereignty and legitimacy. The challenge for the AU is to become accountable to the people of Africa. It can only do so if it is composed of elected leaders that adhere to human rights and respect the tenants of accountable and good governance where governance in the interests of all and not only a few. Admittedly the OAU had little choice in the matter since intergovernmental organizations are ultimately beholden to their member states. But the AU could be different.
Transparency and popular participation must be built into the procedures of the AU at all levels, including the proposed Peace and Security Council (the successor to the Central Organ of the OAU) if the Union is to develop the political will and responsiveness necessary to uphold the commitments of the AU act. But much more is needed. African leaders must reflect, through their actions and treatment of one another, the values that lie at the core of stability, democracy and peace. Such a demonstration demands a fundamental break from the past practice of unquestioning solidarity among leaders. It demands an acceptance of the responsibility to protect.

CONCLUSION
The modern trend, also reflected in Article 4(o) of the AU act, is that it is necessary to combat cultures of impunity in order to promote long-term reconciliation, peace and democracy. Collective security can also help African Union to effectively enforce and promote legal and practical peace since the security of one is the concern of all, and agrees to join in a collective response to threats to, and breaches of, the peace. This encompasses the totality of states within the region addresses a wide range of possible threats.

REFERENCES
Asante, S.K(2001): Towards an African Economic Community’, Africa Institute of South Africa, Pretoria.
Genge, M(2000): African Union and a Pan – African Parliament: Working Papers’, Africa Institute of South Africa, Pretoria.
Mazrui, A.A and Patel, H.H(1973): Africa in World Affairs: The Next Thirty Years’, The Third Press, New York.
Meny, Y, and Quermonne, J(1996): Adjusting to Europe : The impact of the European Union on national institutions and policies’, Routledge, London.
Robson, P,(1983): Integration, Development and Equity: Economic Integration in West Africa’, George Allen & Unwin’, London.
Rumford, C,(2002): The European Union: A Political Sociology’, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

QUESTION 4
Discuss the fact that the atrocities being committed in northern Uganda are major threat to international security.

INTRODUCTION
International security consists of the measures taken by nations and international organizations, such as the United Nations, to ensure mutual survival and safety. These measures include military action and diplomatic agreements such as treaties and conventions. International and national security are invariably linked. International security is national security or state security in the global arena.

Atrocities refer to appalling or atrocious acts, situations, or objects, especially an act of unusual or illegal cruelty inflicted by an armed force on civilians or prisoners which are extremely wicked or cruel, typically ones involving physical violence or injury.
Northern Uganda had suffered from civil unrest since the early 1980s. Hundreds of people were killed in the rebellion against the Ugandan government, and an estimated 400-thousand people were left homeless.
As the question proposes, indeed the atrocities being committed in northern Uganda are major threat to international security as presented here below;
First of all it has attracted the attention of international security players for example USA was forced to intervene as evidenced by the statement made by the President OBAMA on the signing of the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009. This law was introduced into the US Senate and House of Representatives in May 2009, and has since become the most widely supported Africa-specific legislation in recent Congressional history. The law was cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 65 Senators and 201 Representatives, representing 49 states and 90% of US citizens. Tens of thousands of Americans mobilized in support of the legislation, participating in hundreds of meetings with Congressional offices across the country.
Secondly the Human Rights Watch has also noted that LRA has committed various atrocities against the people of northern Uganda in particular and the international community in general. Anneke Van Woudenberg, Senior Researcher at Human Rights Watch maintains that for years civilians in central Africa have also suffered immensely from LRA violence.
Because of the above situation, human rights watch support apprehension of the indicted LRA commanders as part of a comprehensive strategy to permanently stop LRA atrocities. Human rights watch further recommends that President Obama should move swiftly to take advantage of this historic opportunity to help bring closure to one of the worst human rights crises likely to be caused by LRA.
Thirdly, it has also attracted the International intervention which include International criminal court issuing warrant of arrest to the top commanders of LRA who are accused of crimes against humanity. ICC notes that LRA violence has plagued central Africa for more than two decades. In northern Uganda, thousands of civilians were killed and nearly two million displaced by the conflict between the rebels and the Ugandan government.
In July 2005, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for the senior leaders of the LRA for crimes they committed in northern Uganda, but the suspects remain at large. Though the rebel group ended attacks in northern Uganda in 2006, it then moved its bases to the northern Democratic Republic of Congo and has since committed acts of violence against civilians in Congo, Sudan, and the Central African Republic. Kony and his top commanders sustain their ranks by abducting civilians, including children, to use as soldiers and sexual slaves.
So far, the International Criminal Court has opened investigations into seven situations: the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Uganda; the Central African Republic, Darfur, Sudan; the Republic of Kenya; the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire. Of these seven, three were referred to the Court by the states parties (Uganda, Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic), two were referred by the United Nations Security Council (Darfur and Libya) and two were begun proprio motu by the Prosecutor (Kenya and Côte d'Ivoire).
The Court publicly indicted 26 people, proceedings against 23 of whom are ongoing. The ICC has issued arrest warrants for 17 individuals and summonses to nine others. Five individuals are in custody and are being tried while eight individuals remain at large as fugitives (although one is reported to have died). Additionally, two individuals have been arrested by national authorities, but have not yet been transferred to the Court. Proceedings against three individuals have finished following the death of two and the dismissal of charges against the other.
As of end September 2010, the Office of the Prosecutor had received 8,874 communications about alleged crimes. After initial review, 4,002 of these communications were dismissed as “manifestly outside the jurisdiction of the Court”
In December 2008, following the collapse of a negotiations process, Sudan, Uganda and Congo began a joint military offensive, “Operation Lightening Thunder,” against the rebel group, with backing from the United States. In the subsequent 17 months the LRA had dispersed into multiple smaller groups and had brutally murdered at least 1,500 civilians and abducted at least 1,600 people, many of them children. LRA violence has often targeted churches, school and markets, and includes the massacre of over 300 Congolese civilians in an attack in the same year.
Further more, the northern Uganda atrocities by LRA have spread through out the Central Africa where they continued to kill and abduct people both indigenous and foreigners. At one time LRA commanders threatened to undermine the referendum in southern Sudan. Hence the LRA atrocities are a clear threat to international peace and security.
With the movement of the LRA into CAR, the Uganda Civil War had effectively escalated into a regional conflict that involved 4 countries that is the DRC, the CAR, Sudan, and Uganda. The LRA, the last remaining anti-government organization from the Uganda Civil War, continued to remain a threat to the region in 2010 by attacking remote locations and they continued to evade capture of the Ugandan military. The goals of the LRA had become increasingly unclear and they did not appear to pose a threat to the governments of any of the countries they operated in, preferring to prey on civilians, killing, raping, and mutilating the people of central Africa; stealing and brutalizing their children; and displacing hundreds of thousands of people in the process. The United States government stated in 2010, that the Lord's Resistance Army had no agenda and no purpose other than its own survival.
Conclusion
The ICC, by investigating and prosecuting those responsible of committing mass atrocities, is supposed to act as a method for deterring and preventing future atrocity crimes from being committed. The effectiveness of this deterrence and prevention depends on the certainty and severity of the consequences of committing those crimes. However, should justice or peace be more important in terms of ending a conflict, such as those in Somalia, Uganda and Sudan? Should justice be sacrificed for peace and an end to conflict and ultimately, the greater good? Or should justice prevail and perpetrators be prosecuted even at the expense of atrocity crimes being perpetrated? The ICC is still in its infant stage to some extent and whether the prosecution of Al-Bashir and other perpetrators will cause other would-be perpetrators to think twice before committing gross human rights abuses remains to be seen.

REFERENCES

Evans, G. 2008. The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All. Brookings Institution Press: Washington, D.C.

Kegley, C.W. and Wittkopf, E.R. (2006): World Politics: Trends and Transformation Thomson Wadsworth: Belmont, USA.

Associated Press, 30 May 2007. Human Rights Watch: Ugandan rebels must face justice, even if not before international court. Accessed 24/11/211.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/cah/ij/w_context/w_context.aspx . Accessed: 14/11/2011.
http://www.iccnow.org/documents/CICCFS_Crime_of_Aggression_Factsheet_FINAL_eng_1May07.pdf. (Coalition for the International Criminal Court. 2007). The ICC and the Crime of Aggression. Available from: Accessed: 20/11/2011.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5966&l=1 . Accessed: 06/01/2010.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7500437.stm . Accessed: 07/01/2010.

Gender and Conflict

2011-12-30T02:58:00.000-08:00

Question 1
Structure Inequalities and Institutional injustice may be some of the causes of Conflict on the African continent. Discuss other causes you have studied.
Introduction
Structure inequality is defined as a condition that arises out of attributing an unequal status to a category of people in relation to one or more other categories, a relationship that is perpetuated and reinforced by a confluence of unequal relations in roles, functions, decisions rights, and opportunities.
Institutional injustice refers to injury, wrong, grievance, acts or conditions that cause people to suffer hardship or loss undeservedly. An injustice is a violation of a person's rights, the term can also refer to unfair treatment of another or others. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" (Martin Luther King, Jr. 1968).
Conflicts refer to disputes, disagreements, quarrels, struggles, fights, and wars between individuals, groups and countries. All over the world, there is no complete agreement as to how wealth, among other issues like power and status among individuals and groups should be shared and how to use it to effect the necessary changes and reforms. Since we all have diverse interests both as groups, nations and individuals, our aims are bound to differ with one another. Conflict s occurs when the deprived group, nation or individuals attempt to increase their share of power and wealth or to modify the dominant values, norms, beliefs or ideology. Gesiye A (2003).
Conflicts arise where the parties come to have incompatible interests, values or goals. ‘Attitudes’ refer to the tendency for the parties to see conflict from their own point of view, to identify with one side, and to diminish the concerns of others and lastly, ‘behaviours’ includes gestures and communications, which can convey either a hostile or a conciliatory intent. Galtung (1996).
There have been over nine (9) million refugees and internally displaced people from conflicts in Africa. Hundreds and thousands of people have been slaughtered from a number of conflicts and civil wars.
The causes of conflicts in Africa are numerous, interconnected and interrelated, ranging from individual or group violations, to structural inequality and injustice. Factors like political corruption, lack of respect for rule of law, human rights violations and so forth do contribute to conflicts on the African continent. Some causes of conflicts in Africa are local while others are the result transformations in the international structure since the end of the cold war. Continuing economic decline and material insecurity are accompanied in many countries in Africa by increase in political instability and conflicts.
Both poverty and conflict are related. Poverty can cause conflict while conflict can lead to poverty based on the state of insecurity and bad governance Draman R (2003). Many communities in Africa most especially the conflict torn areas are suffering from hunger and starvation. Africa as a continent is seen as a poor continent (Rawls 1999)
Conflicts in Africa, as everywhere, are caused by human action, and can be ended by human action. Most of these conflicts has been characterized by extreme brutality for example in Rwanda alone, in 100 days, about a million people were massacred, a scale of killings that is unprecedented in world history. More than 30 wars have been fought in Africa since 1970, and most of these have been internal rather than inter-state wars (Anup Shah 2009). From the above one can infer that most of the Conflicts in Africa are based on internal wrangling, Example of this can be seen from the Ogoni land in Nigeria.
Hunger/famine has been another fundamental cause of conflicts in Africa which mainly caused by successive failed rains.
A famine/hunger is a widespread scarcity of food, caused by several factors including crop failure, overpopulation, or government policies. This phenomenon is usually accompanied or followed by regional malnutrition, starvation, epidemic, and increased mortality. Every continent in the world has experienced a period of famine throughout history. Many countries continue to have extreme cases of famine which in fact cause conflicts in the long run.
A wave of protests has erupted in Africa. A combination of the global financial crisis, rising costs of living, high unemployment especially of educated youth, frustration from decades of living under authoritarian and corrupt regimes, various document leaks revealing more details about how governments around the world are dealing and viewing each other, have all combined in different ways in various countries, leading to a wave of rising anger.
However, despite successive failed rains, the crisis has been criticized as avoidable and man-made. This is because the situation had been predicted many months before by an international early warning system. Both the international community and governments in the region have been accused of doing very little in the lead up to this crisis. In addition, high food prices have forced food out of the reach of many people, while local conflicts exacerbate the situation.
Further electoral frauds have also caused conflicts in some African states. For example following elections in Cote d’Ivoire in October 2010, both President Laurent Gbagbo and opposition candidate, Alassane Ouattara, claimed victory. International observers agreed that the Ouattara had won, but Gbagbo refused to accept this. Negotiations failed and while the world’s attention was elsewhere, the situation became volatile and violent outbursts turned into the country’s second civil war. Forces supporting Ouattara have swept through the country and Gbagbo’s position looks precarious while he remains defiant. This has caused Gbagbo to face international criminal court (ICC) to answer questions against humanity.
More still the conflict in the DR Congo (formerly known as Zaire) has involved seven nations. There have been a number of complex reasons, including conflicts over basic resources such as water, access and control over rich minerals and other resources and various political agendas. This has been fueled and supported by various national and international corporations and other regimes which have an interest in the outcome of the conflict.
Further still, for Niger Delta in Nigeria there have been conflicts by environmentalists, human rights activists and fair trade advocates. The trial and hanging of environmentalist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other members of the Ogoni ethnic minority made world-wide attention. So too did the non-violent protests of the Ogoni people. The activities of large oil corporations such as Mobil, Chevron, Shell, Elf, Agip and so on have raised many concerns and criticisms hence ending up in violent conflicts.
Sierra Leone has seen serious and grotesque human rights violations since 1991 when the civil war erupted. According to Human Rights Watch, over 50,000 people have been killed to date, with over one million people having been displaced. There have been numerous factors contributing to problems such as the diamond connection, the gross abuses committed by both rebel and government forces, and the problems of the current peace treaty. This situation has resulted into a serious conflict there.
It should also be noted that 30 years of war and conflict as Eritrea attempted to gain independence, finally resulted in an April 1993 internationally monitored referendum, where 98.5% of the registered voters voted. 99.8% of the votes were for independence, although the borders were not defined clearly. While the two nations seemed to get on fairly well, relations deteriorated into war/conflict a couple of years after Eritrea introduced its own currency in 1997.
Finally, the conflict and subsequent Rwanda genocide has typically been explained as conflict resulting from ancient tribal hatreds, omitting many of the deeper and also modern causes, such as international economic policies, power politics and corruption of the elite and the like which are also common contributing causes of conflict in Africa in particular and elsewhere in the world today (Angaye, 2003).
CONCLUSION
Conflicts in Africa, as everywhere, are caused by human action, and can be solved by human action. Most of these conflicts have been characterized by extreme brutality. The conflicts in Africa could be minimized if there is an element of political will to fight political corruption, respect for rule of law and fight rights violations which are all common reasons for the causes of Africa’s conflicts.
African leaders should be held responsible for lack of progressive stewardships, accountability and bad governance. Democracy should be encouraged all over the continent so that everybody can participate in the government and the country resources properly distributed among all the stakeholders to avoid conflicts.
REFERENCES
Africa World Press Guide: Compiled and Edited by World Views: Conflicts in Africa: Causes and Prospects for Resolutions Retrieved on 11/11/ 2011.
Angaye, G (2003): Causes and Cures of Conflicts in Nigeria, Macmillan Press.
Boulden J (2003): Dealing with Conflicts in Africa: The United Nations and regional Organisation. Palgrave Macmillan Press.
Burton J (1990): Conflict: resolution and Prevention. The Macmillan Press.
Clayborne, C, (1968): The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Hawkins V (2008): Stealth Conflicts: How the World’s Worst Violence Is Ignored. Ashgate Press.
Jeong, H. (1999): Research on Conflict Resolution. Ashgate Publishing Company, England.
Nye J (2000): Understanding International Conflict: An Introduction to Theory and History. (3rd Edition) Longman Publisher.
Rawls, J. (1999): A Theory of Justice, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press.

QUESTION 2
Basing on militarization and gender identities, women face several vulnerabilities, prejudices and reassertions of palmarchy. Discuss
INTRODUCTION
Militarization refers to the process by which a society organizes itself for military conflict and violence. It is related to militarism, which is an ideology that reflects the level of militarization of a state. The process of militarization involves many interrelated aspects that encompass all levels of society.
Gender identity is the way in which an individual self-identifies with a gender category, for example, as being either a man or a woman, or in some cases being neither, which can be distinct from biological sex. Basic gender identity is usually formed by age three and is extremely difficult to change after that.
Prejudice refers to making a judgment or assumption about someone or something before having enough knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy, or "judging a book by its cover". The word prejudice is most often used to refer to preconceived judgments toward people or a person because of race, social class, ethnicity, age, disability, obesity, religion, sexual orientation, or other personal characteristics. It also means beliefs without knowledge of the facts and may include "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence.
In a militarized society, violence is considered an acceptable way of solving problems in the international sphere and this affects the interpersonal sphere as well. Women are overwhelmingly affected by this violence. One of the basic values of militarism is domination or "power over the other," and through the glorification of the ideal of masculinity, and the belittlement of femininity, women quite obviously become the "other."
It often does not matter if the women are "our" women or "enemy" women, they are still "other" and thus subordinate. Men are socialized to believe that they have an inherent right to control and use women, particularly "their" women (wives and daughters). It is true that in most countries, most forms of violence against women are illegal, but the absence of enforcement of these laws, or the light sentences given to the perpetrators, perpetuates this idea of violence with impunity.
In some cases, the link between militarization and violence against women is explicit. The use of pornography in the military demonstrates the link between misogyny and military preparedness. The showing of pornographic videos to British troops heading to the Falklands and American soldiers before bombing raids during the Gulf War are only two examples.
In many countries there is a high rate of domestic violence in military families. A US Inspector General's report on domestic violence concluded that military service is probably more conducive to violence at home than any other occupation because of the military's authoritarianism, its use of physical force in training and the stress created by frequent moves and separations. Military training encourages men to be aggressive and violent, and then asks them to keep these tendencies in check until they are "needed." It is no surprise that this violence spills over into domestic violence and rape.
Violence against women grows out of the stereotypes/prejudices of masculinity and femininity discussed above and in turn, violence, and the threat of it, enforces these strict gender roles. Often female victims of violence are blamed for an assault, because they had not "behaved appropriately." Being too assertive, too sexually active, or simply in a place not fit for "nice" women can all be given as reasons why a woman "deserved" to be assaulted. This leads women to curtail their activities in order to attempt to ensure their safety.
The use of violence to control rigid perceptions of gender is also evident in "gay-bashing"--assaults on gays and lesbians. Homosexuals are a threat to the tidy categories of gender which serve patriarchal society, and attempts are made to silence them through violence.
Rape is a specific form of violence which is closely linked to masculine attitudes about women. It is not an aggressive expression of sexuality, but a sexual expression of aggression, and as such it is another symptom of a social order which accepts and rewards violence. It is a violent means of perpetuating women's subservient position in society, and it is excused by a militaristic culture which expects men to get what they want through intimidation and violence.
Further more, a more direct way in which the military affects women in "peacetime" is the presence of permanent military bases. Women in southeast Asia have held foreign military bases responsible for creating or exacerbating the conditions which promote prostitution. The influx of (in some cases) several thousand men with large amounts of money to exchange for sex, combined with the presence of local men willing to make money exploiting women and the poverty of local communities has contributed to a large sex industry.
More still, the military needs to marginalize women in order to reassert its masculine identity, and one of the ways to accomplish this is to assert that all women are only useful to serve men's sexual needs. Cynthia Enloe argues that the military's preoccupation has been with satisfying men's perceived sexual needs without losing military efficiency and "readiness." This has often involved a tacit policy of running brothels to ensure a steady supply of women and to attempt to control the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. The military of different countries have different policies regarding prostitution and these depend on the imagined racial or cultural gap between the local population and the military, the level of local hostility, and the level of economic hardship and social displacement in the local community.
In addition, A very contested area of debate about women and militarization is the role of women in the military. While feminists seeking equality with men are opposed to any occupational field being closed to them on the basis of their sex, the goal of having more women in the military is not without its problems. Greater participation in the military as an appropriate means achieving women's liberation must be questioned. To see it as such reinforces its centrality and to integrate women into the military only increases the militarization of society. The military itself uses the argument of promoting women's equality in its recruitment information however, an institution built on masculine ideals such as aggression can hardly be expected to play a sincere part in women's emancipation.
Despite the military's promises of equality and challenging non-traditional careers, women who join are concentrated in clerical and other service jobs which reflect the job ghettos of civilian women. Although women in the military are challenging gender roles by becoming soldiers, they are still judged by them. Military women are labelled either lesbians or prostitutes and are sexually harassed and slandered by their male colleagues. Although most militaries routinely purge homosexuals and lesbians from their ranks, women are much more likely to be targeted and discharged for this reason. This widespread sexual harassment (which affects women in armed forces all over the world) bolsters male egos which have been threatened by female competition and invasion of their previously male-only domain.
The exclusion of women from combat (which must constantly be redefined in an era of nuclear and high tech combat) is essential to preserving the masculine identity of the military and to justifying the continued male dominant position in the social order.
The situation of women who take up arms in situations of armed liberation struggles is often perceived to be different from that of women in the "peace time" military. However, the same ambivalence about women's participation exists in liberation armies. The men need the women, but they do not want to lose their masculine dominance. During the struggle, women's participation in actual combat positions is manipulated by the leadership to exhibit the justness of the cause being fought and the commitment of the population, as well as to exhort men to join a fight for which "even" women are willing to take up arms.
Finally, along with the violence of bombs and bullets, it is not surprising that personal violence against women increases substantially during war. The focus of war is the destruction of the "other," the ideologically, ethnically or sexually different. In armed conflict, it is not only "enemy" women who are targets of violence, often in the form of rape.
CONCLUSION
War and militarization may be "men's business," but women are undeniably affected by it, whether as prostitutes outside a military base, victims of a bombing attack, or mothers whose welfare cheques are getting smaller because of budget cuts. Traditional discussions of militarism and war deny women's specific experiences and reinforce existing power dynamics. A gender analysis of militarism shows that women are greatly affected by militarization and have every right to make opposition to it. Furthermore, as a gender analysis examines the very strong links between militarization and patriarchy it enables women to name their specific oppression and to make the connections between interrelated institutional forms of oppression.
Addressing the links between militarization and patriarchy is important for women peace activists and feminists to achieve their aims. Historically, women have been asked again and again to put off their own demands while "more pressing" problems in society are addressed. By making the condition of women a key part of the explanation of and opposition to militarism, women's oppression remains a central peace issue. For feminists, it is unwise to ignore an institution as large and influential as the military, when working against patriarchy. Women peace activists and feminists have common goals, and should educate people to see the links between institutional and personal violence and oppression. As long as the institutions of patriarchy and militarism are dominant in our societies, there will be no peace or justice.

References
Berit, A.(1983): "A Materialist View of Men's and Women's Attitudes Towards War,"Women's Studies International Forum, Vol 5 , No 3.
Bond, B.(1986): War and Society in Europe, 1870-1970. McGill-Queen's University Press.
Enloe, C.(1998): "Beyond 'Rambo': Women and the Varieties of Militarized Masculinity," in Women and the Military System, ed. Eva Isaksson, London: Harvester.
Gibson, J(1994): William Warrior Dreams: Paramilitary Culture in Post-Vietnam America Hill & Wang.
MacGregor, (1989): Integration of the Armed Forces, 1940-1965 U.S. Govt. Print Office.
Ute, F(2004): A Nation in Barracks: Modern Germany, Military Conscription and Civil Society.

QUESTION 3
Women have joined liberation movements. In Nicaragua, women hold positions of commanders and even full battalions, demonstrating greater gender, social justice and equality. Discuss the achievements of women that you know.
INTRODUCTION
World wide, women have fought for their rights, worked hard to be treated equally and made great strides in fields like science, politics, sports, literature and art. These are just a few of the remarkable accomplishments that historians not to mention people across the world celebrate.
The feminist movement also known as the Women's Movement, Women's Liberation refers to a series of campaigns for reforms on issues such as reproductive rights, domestic violence, maternity leave, equal pay, women's suffrage, sexual harassment and sexual violence. The movement's priorities vary among nations and communities and range from opposition to female genital mutilation in one country or to the glass ceiling in another.
The movement began in the western world in the late 18th century and has gone through three waves:
The first wave was oriented around the station of middle or upper-class white women, and involved suffrage and political equality.
Second-wave feminism attempted to further combat social and cultural inequalities.
Third-wave feminism (1980-1990) which includes renewed campaigning for women’s greater influence in politics.
On Election Days women have exercised their right to vote in many nations save for few countries remaining in the Arab world. This took women activists and reformers many years to win that right, and the campaign was not easy. For example disagreements over this strategy threatened to cripple the movement of women many times but it was on August 26, 1920, the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was finally ratified, enfranchising all American women and declaring for the first time that they, like men, deserve all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
Further more women have achieved formal legal equality as men. Formal equality assumes that equality is achieved if the law treats all persons alike. However, when individuals or groups are not identically situated (for example a black woman versus a white man), the formal equality model tends to perpetuate discrimination and inequality, because it cannot address real inequality in circumstances.
In fact, by treating different individuals as equals despite unequal access to power and resources, formal equality creates an illusion of equality while allowing real economic, legal, political and social disparities to grow.
Additionally, married women have achieved the battle of being capable of holding property and of contracting as female soles. Here women have are given powers of acquiring, holding, and disposing by will or otherwise, of any real or personal property as her separate property, in the same manner as if she were a female sole, without the intervention of any trustee.
Women have also achieved in the field of military careers whereby they are now permitted to serve as full members of the armed forces.
It should be remembered that during World War I many women had enlisted as volunteers in the military services and they usually served in clerical roles. When the war ended, they were released from their duties. The same was true during World War II, when an even greater number of women volunteers served in the armed forces. For example these days women serve as permanent, regular members of not only the army but also the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force.
The current trends show that women have achieved liberation as far as women's bodies and sexuality are concerned. In some nations, safe, legal, and free abortion is available on demand for any woman who has reached the age of majority consenting age (in some countries it is sixteen years and others like Uganda it is eighteen years). Contraceptives are widely available, even to young girls, along with effective sex education which is more progressive and honest than that in most other nations.
However, the liberation of female sexuality, allowing young girls as well as boys to experiment sexually without social censure, has resulted in a high rate of pregnancy among girls under the consenting age.
During September 1994 Cairo conference, the United Nation's International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) fundamentally shifted its strategy to reduce world population. Studies indicated that increasing women's education, improving their access to health care and creating opportunities for them in the economic sphere lowered the birth rate. As a result, the ICPD shifted away from establishing target population rates for individual countries and committed itself to raise the health and socio-economic status of women. This indeed has been an achievement as a result of women’s effort to negotiate strategically for their well being.
Further still, women have achieved the battle against gender inequality as most world bodies have since defined gender equality in terms of human rights, especially women's rights, and economic development. For example UNICEF defines gender equality as "levelling the playing field for girls and women by ensuring that all children have equal opportunity to develop their talents."
The United Nations Population Fund has declared that women have a right to equality. "Gender equity" is one of the goals of the United Nations Millennium Project, to end world poverty by 2015. The project claims, "Every single Goal is directly related to women's rights, and societies where women are not afforded equal rights as men can never achieve development in a sustainable manner." Thus, promoting gender equality is seen as an encouragement to greater economic prosperity. For example, nations of the Arab world that deny equality of opportunity to women were warned in a 2008 United Nations-sponsored report that this disempowerment is a critical factor crippling these nations' return to the first rank of global leaders in commerce, learning and culture.
In some Muslim nations like Tunisia, some women's rights activists have already secured two significant achievements that is gender parity in the October 2011 elections for the Constituent Assembly, and the withdrawal of key reservations by the previous government to the international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Important concerns remain, but these are hopeful signs of positive things to come.
The gender parity electoral law, which requires equal numbers of male and female candidates, was a breakthrough for women's political representation in Tunisia.
In Egypt's January 25th uprising, which led to the downfall of Hosni Mubarak, did not succeed through the efforts of men alone. In fact, women were as instrumental as men in mobilizing people to join the protests to demand an end to Mubarak's rule. For 18 days, women stayed in Cairo's Tahrir Square, vowing to remain there until their demands for justice and democracy were met.
However, after Mubarak was finally ousted, women seemed no longer welcome to participate in the deliberations to map out the country's future, or to continue to press their demands for equality.
CONCLUSION
The world in the past has been ruled by force, and man has dominated over woman by reason of his more forceful and aggressive qualities both of body and mind. But the balance is already shifting; force is losing its dominance, and mental alertness, intuition, and the spiritual qualities of love and service, in which woman is strong, are gaining ascendancy. Hence the new age will be an age less masculine and more permeated with the feminine ideals an age in which the masculine and feminine elements of civilization will be more evenly balanced.
Men have an inescapable duty to promote the equality of women. The presumption of superiority by men thwarts the ambition of women and inhibits the creation of an environment in which equality may reign. The destructive effects of inequality prevent men from maturing and developing the qualities necessary to meet the challenges of the new millennium.
REFERENCES
Freeman, J. (1975): The politics of women's liberation. David McKay N.Y.
Morgan, R. (1979): An Anthology of Writings From the Women's Liberation Movement (N.Y. Random House, 1st ed.
Hooks, B (2000): Feminist theory: from margin to center. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Rochelle, G.(1987): American Women Since 1945. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.
Culture of Cuba - history, people, clothing, women, beliefs, food, customs, family, social http://www.everyculture.com/Cr-Ga/Cuba.html#ixzz1dMWRijPF/19/11/2011

QUESTION 4
Rape is a weapon of aggression by men against women. Discuss the effects of rape.
The definition of rape varies both in different parts of the world and at different times in history. Rape is defined in many jurisdictions as sexual intercourse, or other forms of sexual penetration, of one person by another person without the consent of the victim. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent. The term is most often defined in criminal law. A person who commits an act of rape is known as a rapist.
Sexual violence is one of the most horrific weapons of war, an instrument of terror used against women.
There are various effects and aftermath of rape which include both physical trauma and psychological trauma. However, physical force is not necessarily used in rape, and physical injuries are not always a consequence. Deaths associated with rape are known to occur, though the prevalence of fatalities varies considerably across the world. For rape victims the more common consequences of sexual violence are those related to reproductive health, mental health, and social wellbeing.
The physical and psychological effects of rape perpetrated as a weapon of war are compounded by myriad accompanying traumas. Women subjected to sexual violence in war usually are also suffering the traumas of the death (often violent) of family and friends, exile and dislocation, and the loss of everything familiar to them, from homes and possessions to traditions and routines.
Rape survivors bear numerous physical and psychological scars. Rape is a violent act, and victims may incur broken bones, concussions, and wounds. Women who resist the act may bear signs of self-defense, such as hair torn from the back of their heads and bruising of the arms and chest.
Rape victims also suffer from bruising or tearing of the genitalia, tearing of the perineum and damage to the bladder and rectum. If the perpetrators use foreign objects to penetrate a woman, or if the rape is extremely violent, the woman may experience traumatic fistula. This leads to chronic incontinence of urine and feces, which causes chronic health problems and possibly ostracism from the community.
Rape victims are at risk of contracting HIV/AIDs and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and developing pelvic inflammatory disease, which carries a risk of long-term infertility. A woman who contracts an STI while pregnant is at high risk of miscarriage, spontaneous abortion and death.
Many women who become pregnant as a consequence of rape may attempt to induce abortion of the fetus, often at great risk to their own health. Women who conceive as a result of rape may not seek pre- or ante-natal care, and children they deliver are often neglected, abused, stigmatized, ostracized or even killed.
There are both immediate and long-term psychological consequences of rape in war for a woman, her family and the community. In the immediate aftermath, a victim may suffer from shock, denial, fear and a sense of loss of control over her own life. A woman may manifest the psychological distress in physical symptoms including headaches, chest and pelvic pain. In the longer-term, a woman might suffer from depression, suicidal ideation and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In addition to affecting her relationships with her husband and children, these conditions may render a woman unable to fulfill familial duties including taking care of the household and children or working.
Rape in war frequently entails more than one traumatic occurrence. In many conflicts, women have been captured and held captive for weeks, months or even years as sex slaves, and raped repeatedly. The psychological burdens for these women, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and suicidal ideation and attempts are extreme. The husbands and partners of women raped in war may experience profound shame feeling that the act has brought dishonor to them and the family. He may divorce the woman or begin to act verbally or physically abusive.
Widespread rape has profound consequences at the community level as well, as the violation ruptures social cohesion and entire communities feel vulnerable and traumatized collectively by the sexual violence.
Furthermore pregnancy may result from rape. The rate varies between settings and depends particularly on the extent to which non-barrier contraceptives are being used. A study of adolescents in Ethiopia found that among those who reported being raped, 17% became pregnant after the rape, a figure which is similar to the 15–18% reported by rape crisis centres in Mexico.
A longitudinal study in the United States of over 4000 women followed for 3 years found that the national rape related pregnancy rate was 5.0% per rape among victims aged 12–45 years, producing over 32 000 pregnancies nationally among women from rape each year.
Additionally as an effect of rape, experience of coerced sex at an early age reduces a woman’s ability to see her sexuality as something over which she has control. As a result, it is less likely that an adolescent girl who has been forced into sex will use condoms or other forms of contraception, decreasing the likelihood of her not becoming pregnant.
A study of factors associated with teenage pregnancy in Cape Town, South Africa, found that forced sexual initiation was the third most strongly related factor, after frequency of intercourse and use of modern contraceptives. Forced sex can also result in unintended pregnancy among adult women. In India, a study of married men revealed that men who admitted forcing sex on their wives were 2.6 times more likely to have caused an unintended pregnancy than those who did not admit to such behavior.
More still violent or forced sex can increase the risk of transmitting HIV/AIDS. In forced vaginal penetration, abrasions and cuts commonly occur, thus facilitating the entry of the virus through the vaginal mucosa. Adolescent girls are particularly susceptible to HIV infection through forced sex, and even through unforced sex, because their vaginal mucous membranes have not yet acquired cellular density sufficient to provide an effective barrier that develops in the later teenage years.
It should also be noted that being a victim of sexual violence and being susceptible to HIV share a number of risk behaviors. Forced sex in childhood or adolescence, for instance, increases the likelihood of engaging in unprotected sex, having multiple partners, participating in sex work, and substance abuse.
Self-blame is among the most common of both short- and long-term effects and functions as an avoidance coping skill that inhibits the healing process and can often be remedied by a cognitive therapy technique known as cognitive restructuring (Kopper, 1996).
Childhood and adulthood victims of rape are more likely to attempt or commit suicide. The association remains, even after controlling for sex, age, education, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and the presence of psychiatric disorders. The experience of being raped can lead to suicidal behavior as early as adolescence as these victims feel embarrassed to talk about what had happened to them. A study of adolescents in Brazil found prior sexual abuse to be a leading factor predicting several health risk behaviours, including suicidal thoughts and attempts.
Finally, rape is especially stigmatizing in cultures with strong customs and taboos regarding sex and sexuality. For example, a rape victim (especially one who was previously a virgin) may be viewed by society as being "damaged." Victims in these cultures may suffer isolation, be disowned by friends and family, be prohibited from marrying, be divorced if already married, or even killed. This phenomenon is known as secondary victimization.
CONCLUSION
Much as rape is a negative act in society, it has been found out that some individuals may endorse rape myths and at the same time recognize the negative effects of rape. A number of gender role stereotypes can play a role in rationalization of rape. In the case of male-on-female rape, these include the idea that power is reserved to men whereas women are meant for sex and objectified, that women want forced sex and to be pushed around and that male sexual impulses and behaviors are uncontrollable and must be satisfied. In the case of female-on-male rape, the victim may either be perceived as weak or, in cultures where men acquire status by sexual conquest, as fortunate.
References
Boyer, D. (1992): "Sexual abuse as a factor in adolescent pregnancy". Family Planning Perspectives
Campbell, JC. (1995): "Health effects of experiences of sexual violence for women with abusive partners". Health Care for Women International
Jagger, C (1998): "A comparative study of women with chronic pelvic pain, chronic nonpelvic pain and those with no history of pain attending general practitioners". British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Mulugeta, E (1998): "Prevalence and outcomes of sexual violence among high school students". Ethiopian Medical Journal
Roosa, M, 2009): "The relationship of childhood sexual abuse to teenage pregnancy". Journal of Marriage and the Family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape/12/11/2011
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia/rape/17/11/2011

QUESTION 5
Discuss the relationship between Conflicts, Poverty and Gender in the conflict of Sub Saharan Africa.

INTRODUCTION

Africa continues to be the region with the greatest number of conflicts. These internal conflicts pose a serious threat to economic development, especially for the poor African community members hence poverty becomes the order of the day (Galtung, 2009).
Conflict is generally defined as an interaction between interdependent people who perceive incompatible goals and who expect interference from the other party if they attempt to achieve their goal. According Galtung (1996) conflict could be viewed as a triangle with structure, attitudes, and behaviour as its vertices. By structure, it means the conflict situation, the parties, and the conflict of interest among them. Conflict arises where the parties come to have incompatible interests, values or goals.
Gender is a range of characteristics used to distinguish between males and females, particularly in the cases of men and women and the masculine and feminine attributes assigned to them. Depending on the context, the discriminating characteristics vary from sex to social role to gender identity. Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955.
Poverty is a denial of choices and opportunities, a violation of human dignity. It means lack of basic capacity to participate effectively in society. It means not having enough to feed and clothe a family, not having a school or clinic to go to, not having the land on which to grow one’s food or a job to earn one’s living, not having access to credit. It means insecurity, powerlessness and exclusion of individuals, households and communities. It means susceptibility to violence, and it often implies living in marginal or fragile environments, without access to clean water or sanitation (Adebajo, 2002).
This assignment explores the relationship between Conflicts, Poverty and Gender in the conflict of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) as here below presented;
Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) stands out from other developing regions by the sheer number of conflicts and the massive impact on lives and livelihoods. In SSA, as the distinction between criminal and political violence becomes ever more blurred, has armed conflict become the major determinant of poverty.
A report from the Institute of Development Studies argues that war and poverty are in a dynamic and mutually reinforcing relationship. The conventional portrayal of conflict as a deviation from 'normal' life fails to comprehend situations where conflict splutters/re-ignites and is rarely settled by 'peace' agreements. Policy interventions will not promote sustainable peace unless built on subtler analysis of war economies and failing states.
No less than 28 SSA states have been at war since 1980. Increasingly, conflicts are regionally connected. It is a moot point whether in the Great Lakes, East and Central Africa there is a series of interlocking 'national' conflicts or a single zone of conflict in which national armies and non-state armed groups cross frontiers at will as seen here below; .
In Liberia Charles Taylor thrived from war entrepreneurs whose thinking was globally based but acted locally, using violence to exploit marketable natural resources without necessarily controlling the state. The resultant of this is country wide poverty.
It should also be noted that the spread of light weapons and the diversion of resource revenues to fund conflicts are things conflict mongers have cherished for long. This kind of lavish spending has sunk certain nations in poverty.
It has been found out most of these poverty causing acts are mainly done by men there a more nuanced gender understanding is required to understand the role of women in instigating or participating in conflict to address the situation.
Furthermore history has it that conflicts exacerbate inequalities in gender relations that existed in the pre-conflict period. Therefore the relationship between the variables of conflicts, gender and poverty do have an impact. For example armed conflict has a direct impact on gender relations. Analyzing the distinct ways that both women and men are affected by conflict assist us to define solutions to the effects of this which include poverty in society.
In conflict situations, interventions to address poverty must account for the diverse realities of women and men, who may simultaneously play the roles of activists and parents, soldiers and victims. Recognizing and addressing this diversity is vital to establishing more sustainable, gender-equal societies in the aftermath of conflict which is essential to address poverty in such communities.
It should be known that women experience significant disadvantage in the course of armed conflict, but it does not necessarily follow that men are always the perpetrators and therefore the winners, and women the losers. The situation where women are in such a disadvantaged position, leads to poverty since they are mainly the producers of wealth especially in developing nations where agriculture is the base for development.

The inequality that women experience during and after armed conflict in all societies derives from dominant understandings of gender roles. ‘Gender’ refers to the perceptions of appropriate behaviour, appearance and attitude for women and men that arise from social and cultural expectations. In the context of armed conflict, the perception persists of women as wives, mothers and nurturers, whereas men are cast as aggressors and soldiers. Although women and men do often assume these traditional parts, there is a tendency in the mainstream literature to exaggerate the extent to which they play stereotypical gender roles in armed conflict. The reality is that women are also active as soldiers and aggressors, while men may be both victims as well as combatants. Such a thing encourages the condition of poverty persistence in such a setting.

Further more the relationship between gender, conflict and poverty may be seen in terms of how power dynamics between women and men are affected by the distinct types of disadvantage that armed conflict imposes. Existing analyses of conflict and post-conflict resolution are weak in various ways as some ignore women while others take a gender-blind approach or define the role of women in stereotypical ways. Still others look at women without considering gender relations. This in turn encourages poverty to thrive in conflict situations.

Also where the term ‘gender’ appears, its usage often implies that women (and girls) are predominantly ‘victims’ who experience ‘special’ circumstances and have ’special’ needs, while men are depicted as the ‘perpetrators’. But the term ‘gender’ should not be used in such a limited fashion. Rather, it should allow us to understand that women and men function in a variety of roles, stereotypical or otherwise and to examine how changes in these roles affect gender relations in conflict situation hence exacerbates the poverty cycle in society.

In order for social upheaval to lead to more equitable relationships between men and women, it is advisable to first perform a gender analysis. This allows us to identify the nature of existing power relations between men and women in a particular society and to understand how conflict and its aftermath affect these relations. It also highlights the fact that marginalized groups who do not readily conform to female and male stereotypes, such as male pacifists or women in the military, experience conflict in diverse ways.
The destabilization of gender relations that frequently accompanies conflict and its aftermath also opens up potential opportunities. Following the upheaval of a conflict, is a clean slate to start again and ask some fundamental questions about what kind of society people want and how gender relations will function within it. In other words it is a time when social upheaval might open a door to the changes people hope for (Cockburn and Zarkov 2002). The reality is however, that sometimes these changes are not forthcoming. Otherwise once this is not given due attention, then poverty will obviously surface.

Conclusion
Although there are lots of Conflicts in Africa for quite sometime now, the Continent is gradually getting out of the madness called “Conflicts”, Africans themselves through the African Union (AU) which is doing much to check all these Conflicts situations and mediate where possible. Alternative approaches to prevent conflicts should always be sought by African leaders before they engage in senseless conflicts which affect social structures hence exacerbates the poverty levels in the continent. Both men and women have a task of addressing the conflict issues raised in this presentation and solve the rampant poverty affecting African States. The International community also has a role to play for Africa and also check the activities of the multinationals.
References
Adams, M. (1995): 'Conflict and Development: Organisational Adaptation in Conflict situations', Oxfam Discussion Paper No 4, Oxford: Oxfam

Adebajo, A.(2002): Building peace in West Africa: Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea-Bissau, Boulder, USA: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Anderlini, S. N., (2001): Women, Peace and Security: A Policy Audit. From the Beijing Platform for Action to UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and Beyond, London: International Alert.

Anderson, M. (1999), Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace - or War, Boulder: Lynne
Rienner.

Benjamin, JA., (2001): Conflict, Post-conflict, and HIV/AIDS – the Gender Connections: Women, War and HIV/AIDS: West Africa and the Great Lakes, Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children, Presented at the World Bank, International Women’s Day, March

Galtung, J.(1996): Peace by Peaceful means: Peace and Conflict Development and Civilization, London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications.

Wilkinson, S. (2004): “Which Group Identities Lead to Most Violence? Evidence from India”, Paper prepared for the Yale Conference on Order, Conflict and Violence, Yale University, April 30th – May 1st.

Zartman, W. (1995): Collapsed States: The Disintegration and Restoration of Legitimate Authority, Boulder.

http://www.globalissues.org/print/issue/83/18/11/2011

http://www.globalissues.org/issue/83/conflicts-in-africa/20/11/2011

GLOBAL POLITICS AND CONFLICT

2011-12-30T02:47:00.000-08:00

QUESTION 1
Explain the purposes and principles of the United Nations and discuss the problems the organization may face in promoting its purposes and principles
INTRODUCTION
The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, when the UN Charter had been ratified by a majority of the original 51 Member States. The day is now celebrated each year around the world as United Nations Day.
The purpose of the United Nations is to bring all nations of the world together to work for peace and development, based on the principles of justice, human dignity and the well-being of all people. It affords the opportunity for countries to balance global interdependence and national interests when addressing international problems.
There are currently 192 Members of the United Nations. They meet in the General Assembly, which is the closest thing to a world parliament. Each country, large or small, rich or poor, has a single vote.
UN exists under the following purposes;
 To maintain international peace and security, and to that end take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.
 To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace
 To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
 To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
The UN and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated above, acts in accordance with the following Principles;
 The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
 All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
 All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
 All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
 All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
 The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
 Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
Many events have presented the United Nations with a clear and unequivocal challenge to the principles and purposes contained in its charter as here below discussed;
First and foremost the UN faces the challenge of funding certain activities. With its new, higher profile, however, the UN has had to make difficult choices. Limited funds and the UN's own limited capacity to plan and implement peace-keeping operations require that priorities be established. The Secretary General has been encouraged by some member states to increase his efforts not only to resolve conflicts but to head them off. It has been recognized, however, that fundamental to the success of any UN peace-keeping operations is the full cooperation of the parties. It has further been acknowledged that regional organizations could play a constructive peace-keeping role and might be better situated, on a case-by-case basis, to intercede and mediate the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Secondly, although the UN system has created a legal framework for action on human rights, efforts to implement the established standards have been uneven. Some observers have suggested that UN forums have been characterized by "selective morality" as criticism has been focused primarily on the state of human rights for example in Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, South Africa, and the Israeli-occupied territories simply because such criticism was acceptable to a majority of UN members, while criticism of other nations' abuses was not. This obviously poses a challenge to UN principles and purposes.
Another challenge UN faces is the wide range of issues that the United Nations is now called upon to face outside the traditional security arena for instance issues of the current climate change and HIV/AIDS. These challenges being cross-cutting issues, UN cannot ignore them but handle them as well meaning that UN is becoming over stretched in its operations posing a challenge.
Furthermore, is has been observed that world wide, that human rights and democracy are now generally accepted as world norms although one wonders how far, in many member countries, the practice still falls short of the rhetoric. Hence this is a challenge to UN principles and purposes.
UN faces the challenge to harness the potential of information and communication technology to promote the development goals of the Millennium Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, achievement of universal primary education (UPE), promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women, reduction of child mortality, improvement of maternal health, to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability and development of global partnerships for development for the attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world.

Another challenge UN faces is the achievement of sustainable development and agreed development goals, as contained in the Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and other outcomes of relevant United nations summits. This is simply because most people would like to live in a sustainable community, but they cannot afford to do so because current business models encourage activities that do not take into account future problems since sustainable development creates long-term economic stability, but does not create short-term profits. This remains a big challenge to the achievement of UN principles and purposes.
The idea of equal political rights in member countries which encompass both the "sovereign equality" of all Member States, in Article 2 of the Charter, and "respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms", in Article 1, remain a challenge
The prohibition of the use of armed force, "save in the common interest" remains a challenge for example the legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been widely debated since the United States, United Kingdom, and a coalition of other countries launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that according to the UN Charter point of view, that war was illegal and yet the political leaders of the US and UK have argued that the war was legal.
More still there is a challenge of industrialized countries remaining reluctant to see the United Nations act on the second principle of the promotion of "equal economic opportunities". As the governments of some certain countries are equally loath to see it actively promote "respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all".
Finally, the most complex of the challenges to UN is the building of an international system based on a genuine democracy as any idea of a crusade comes in the name of democracy, which is in itself undemocratic, as is any principle that seeks to impose itself universally. Thus, paradoxically, the missionary enthusiasm for democracy ends up affecting the nature of democracy itself.
CONCLUSION
Change and globalization are constantly reshaping reality. UN now promises to encourage a new sense of commonality and even new morals and a new political ethic on the international community. The international legal order has therefore acquired an enormous significance, since it is the only means of restricting arbitrariness and subjectivity. It is also the most effective mechanism for the protection of human rights and human freedom among member states.

REFERENCES

Lindblom, Anna-Karin, Non-governmental organizations in international law, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Rosato, S. (2003): "The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory". American Political Science Review 97: 585–602

Rummel, R, J. (1983): "Libertarianism and international violence". Journal of Conflict Resolution

Souva, M.(2004): "Institutional Similarity and Interstate Conflict". International Interactions

Spiro, D, E. (1994): "Give Democratic Peace a Chance? The Insignificance of the Liberal Peace". International Security (International Security,

Terminski, B. (2010). "The Evolution of the Concept of Perpetual Peace in the History of Political-Legal Thought". Perspectivas Internacionales

http://www.un.org 10/11.2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory/11/11/2011

QUESTION 2
Using relevant examples, give reasons why it is increasingly difficult to root out terrorist networks and their activities across the world.

INTRODUCTION

According to American Heritage Dictionary, terrorism refers to the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia defines terrorism as systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. It has been used throughout history by political organizations of both the left and the right, by nationalist and ethnic groups, and by revolutionaries. Although usually thought of as a means of destabilizing or overthrowing existing political institutions, terror also has been employed by governments against their own people to suppress dissent examples include the reigns of certain Roman emperors, the French Revolution, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and Argentina during the "dirty war" of the 1970s.

Reasons why it is increasingly difficult to root out terrorist networks and their activities across the world are various but here below are some of them;
Not surprisingly, as the meaning of terrorism and usage of the word have changed over time to accommodate the political vernacular and discourse of each successive era, terrorism has proved increasingly elusive in the face of attempts to construct one consistent definition.
At one time, the terrorists themselves were far more cooperative in this endeavour than they are today. The early practitioners did not mince their words or hide behind the semantic camouflage for example calling themselves `freedom fighters' or `urban guerrillas'. The nineteenth-century anarchists, for example, unabashedly proclaimed themselves to be terrorists and frankly proclaimed their tactics to be terrorism.
The above situation makes it difficult to fight terrorism because various nations define it differently hence it is not easy to put common measures to fight the vice.
A war on terrorism is difficult to fight due to its nature. Terrorism by definition is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. It may also be seen as a state of fear and submission produced by terrorization. The fact that terrorism has such a psychological impact means it affects everyone differently. It is a subjective response to an event. Anything that is subjective will be difficult to overcome for a large group of people, because people's responses will be different.
Another reason that a war on terrorism is difficult to fight is that the individuals perpetrating the acts are diverse and spread out across the globe. It is difficult for the government(s) to pin down the core of the group to cut off power. This is because there are so many different cores.
Terrorism is not isolated, nor easy to locate. Sure, we have the "hot spots" where some of them universally operate, however, that is just the tip of the iceberg. A truly hardcore terrorist-bound organization is very secretive. It is indeed an organization, whose operations are no different from the official intelligence organizations such as CIA, FBI etc
Furthermore, the war on terrorism is so hard to fight because it takes a lot of people to track the doings of a group just as strong and organized as our best military forces, yet, it takes also a separate group to understand their sub-cultural disdain since they are secretive and self-protective.
The war on terror is hard to fight because instead of having one big enemy that we can name and find, we have many little ones. Additionally, our enemies are harbored in countries in the Middle East with which we have few positive relations. They also attack in small groups or alone and are not afraid to die (fundamentalism at play).
The war on terrorism is so challenging because of its unconventional nature it takes. Unlike a traditional war that takes place on a definite battlefield, with clearly defined armies, and where the enemy is visible, the war on terror is difficult as it is elusive in nature.
The "enemy" can strike at any time, with any means, and through any venue. Traditionalism goes out the window in such a setting. Even the weapons are non- traditional. Bombs can be used, but cell phones could also be used as detonating devices. Guns might be used, but more likely devices like razors or chemicals would be employed. The terrorist has a distinct advantage in that they only have to be right once, while the opponent has to be right all the time in order to prevent disaster, loss of life, and public panic.
Another reason why the war on terrorism is so difficult to fight is because many of the terrorist cells are hidden. In addition to being hidden they are spread all over the world. In fact, there are many terrorists right in the United States at this very moment as the United States has very porous borders like any other developing nations. This means that it is fairly easy for people to travel in and out of the country. Of course it has been harder since the attacks on 9/11 but it still is possible.
More still it is difficult to fight terrorism because there are groups of terrorists called "sleeper cells" which means that they are dormant or on standby. One of the purposes of these kinds of groups is to simply blend in and remain undetected until they are told to carry out the terrorist attack. These people are also difficult to find hence making war on terror difficult to fight..
In some instances terrorism is rooted in religion. This can cause people to act in ways that are very illogical or counter-intuitive for example willingness to blow themselves up. Looking back at history, religious clashes have often been the most difficult to resolve and end because people feel so strongly about their religious beliefs. Because terrorists are under the belief that they are doing God's will, they will go to extremes beyond what is usually seen to accomplish their mission.

Another reason is the difference in cultures. While many of the local population is not actively involved in terrorist activities, they are much less likely to aid those fighting terrorism because those fighting terrorism are still seen as outsiders, where the terrorists come from the same religion, country or tribe.

Because terrorism is a non-conventional war, almost guerrilla like tactics. These types of fights whether it be the US fighting the British during the revolutionary war, or fighting in the jungles of Vietnam, are always more difficult. It is not a traditional battle for example the US civil war, WWII and so on where the two face-off, one side wins and the loser agrees to give up their fight, and the two sides move forward looking towards the future.

Terrorism operates against the basic rules of engagement. Most notably it operates against civilians, and sometimes from within civilian population. It strikes at random, which makes it harder to defend against. Its impact is not only the physical damage it causes but mostly the effect on day-to-day life. This also makes it difficult to fight.

Defending against terror using conventional means contribute to its psychological effect as the conventional war-like methods are ineffective against terrorism. In an overly-"politically-correct" society, simple risk-assessment statistics-based deductions becomes "racial profiling", which makes life even harder.
Another challenging primary difficulty of fighting terrorism is the issue of civil liberties and individual privacy that such measures often entail, both for citizens of, and for those detained by states attempting to combat terror. At times, measures designed to tighten security have been seen as abuses of power or even violations of human rights. Examples of these problems can include prolonged, incommunicado detention without judicial review, risk of subjecting suspects to torture during the transfer, return and extradition of people between or within countries and the adoption of security measures that restrain the rights or freedoms of citizens and breach principles of non-discrimination.
Finally, because some governments do kidnap suspected terrorists and keep them indefinitely without charge in torture camps, this causes their sympathisers/accomplices to occupy foreign sovereign nations and continue to undermine their operations. This could be the reason as to terrorism has increased sevenfold since 2001. I would think these things would encourage and breed more terrorists and new followers.

CONCLUSION
Viewing terrorism as the extreme edge of mainstream trends helps us understand, and thus seek solutions, to it. When we view terrorists as evil or beyond explanation, we are inaccurate and unhelpful. We cannot 'solve' an evil. We can only live fearfully in its shadow. Even if it is uncomfortable to think of people who do terrible things to innocent people as part of our same world, I believe it is important to try. It has been found out that people who have chosen terrorism in the last century have been influenced by the same broad trends that we all have.

REFERENCES
Alibek, K. (1999). Biohazard. New York: Random House.
Carter, A.; Deutch, J.; and Zelikow, P. (1998). "Combating Catastrophic Terrorism." Foreign Affairs (Nov/Dec):80–94.
Cohen, H. W.; Gould, R. M.; and Sidel, V. W. "Bioterrorism Initiatives: Public Health in Reverse?" American Journal of Public Health 89:1629–1631.
Hudson, R, A. (1999): The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: who becomes a terrorist and why?, Federal Research Division, Library of Congress

Hanratty, D, M & Meditz, S,W. (1988): "Post-National Front Political Developments". Colombia: A Country Study. Library of Congress.
.
Pape, R, A. (2005). Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Random House. pp. 237–250

Tucker, J. B. (1997): "National Health and Medical Services Response to Incidents of Chemical and Biological Terrorism." Journal of the American Medical Association 278:389–395.

QUESTION 3
“The independence of most states in the developing world is mythical other than a reality”. Using relevant examples, respond to the statement.

Introduction:
A developing country is a nation with a low level of material well-being. Since no single definition of the term developing country is recognized internationally, the levels of development may vary widely within the so-called developing countries. Some developing countries have high average standards of living than others.
Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations, defined a developed country as follows. "A developed country is one that allows all its citizens to enjoy a free and healthy life in a safe environment.
The independence of most states in the developing world is mythical other than a reality as discussed here below;
The term developing country implies inferiority of a 'developing country' or 'undeveloped country' compared to a 'developed country', which many countries dislike. It assumes a desire to ‘develop’ along the traditional 'Western' model of economic development which a few countries, such as Cuba and Bhutan, have chosen not to follow.
The term 'developing' implies mobility and does not acknowledge that development may be in decline or static in some countries, particularly in southern African states worst affected by HIV/AIDS. In such cases, the term developing country may be considered a euphemism. The term implies homogeneity between such countries, which vary widely. The term also implies homogeneity within such countries when wealth (and health) of the most and least affluent groups varies widely.
Similarly, the term 'developed country' incorrectly implies a lack of continuing economic development/growth in more-developed countries.
In general development entails a modern infrastructure (both physical and institutional), and a move away from low value added sectors such as agriculture and natural resource extraction. Developed countries, in comparison, usually have economic systems based on continuous, self-sustaining economic growth in the tertiary sector of the economy and quaternary sector of the economy and high material standards of living.
However, there are notable exceptions, as some countries considered developed have a significant component of primary industries in their national economies for instance Norway, Canada, Australia. The USA and Western Europe have a very important agricultural sector, and are major players in international agricultural markets. Also, natural resource extraction can be a very profitable industry (high value added), for example oil extraction.
The independence of developing nations being mythical is best explained using Dependency theory where a body of social science theories predicated on the notion that resources flow from a "periphery" of poor and underdeveloped states to a "core" of wealthy states, enriching the latter at the expense of the former. It is a central contention of dependency theory that poor states are impoverished and rich ones enriched by the way poor states are integrated into the "world system."
It should be noted that developing nations are thought by developed nations to be primitive and weaker members in a world market economy hence not independent. Here the dependency theorists argued, in opposition to free market economists and modernization theorists, that underdeveloped countries needed to reduce their connectedness with the world market so that they can pursue a path more in keeping with their own needs, less dictated by external pressures.
Independence of developing nations remains mythical in that poor nations provide natural resources, cheap labor, a destination for obsolete technology, and markets for developed nations, without which the latter could not have the standard of living they enjoy. This further explains the allegation.
Further more wealthy nations actively perpetuate a state of dependence by various means. This influence may be multifaceted, involving economics, media control, politics, banking and finance, education, culture, sport, and all aspects of human resource development including recruitment and training of workers.
Also is common knowledge that wealthy nations actively counter attempts by dependent nations to resist their influences by means of economic sanctions and/or the use of military force against the developing nations. This as well worsens the situation of dependency of developing nations on the developed world.
More still developing nations are not fully independent in that poverty of the countries in the periphery is caused by the fact that the periphery is not integrated into the world system, or not fully integrated I the free market economies.
Further sill there is a financial and technological penetration by the developed capitalist centers of the countries of the periphery and semi-periphery which acerbates the situation of developing nations to remain dependent on the developed nations. This situation produces an unbalanced economic structure both within the peripheral societies and between them and the centers.
Another reason as to why independence of developing nations remains a myth is because developed countries have always forced developing countries to do their bidding, whether by brute force or diplomatic persuasion. The more advanced country might force the inferior country to preserve its natural environment. By doing so the developed world is more than likely to destroy to cause more harm than good because of mere suspicion by the inferior.
Beside the above point, there are always hidden intentions, whether political or economic behind this kind of arrangement. Therefore the developing country should have its own say in what it does with what it has. For example, would the US have stopped its Industrial Revolution simply because it was polluting its atmosphere? Would we now give up some of our luxuries because we release Chlorofluorocarbons? No, we would not, although some like to believe they would.
Developing nations remain un-independent in that resources are not used to their full socio-economic potential. These nations remain exporting unprocessed goods to developed nations which results in local or regional development being slower in most cases than it should be. Furthermore, it results from the complex interplay of internal and external factors that allow less developed countries only a lop-sided development progression. This characterizes developing nations by a wide disparity between their rich and poor populations, and an unhealthy balance of trade. This in turn keeps dependent on the developed world.
By and large the economic and social development of many developing countries has not been even. They have an unequal trade balance which results from their dependence upon primary products (usually only a handful) for their export receipts. These commodities are often;
(a) In limited demand in the industrialized countries (for example: tea, coffee, sugar, cocoa, bananas)
(b) Vulnerable to replacement by synthetic substitutes (jute, cotton and others)
(c) Are experiencing shrinking demand with the evolution of new technologies that require smaller quantities of raw materials (as is the case with many metals).
Prices cannot be raised as this simply hastens the use of replacement synthetics or alloys, nor can production be expanded as this rapidly depresses prices. Consequently, the primary commodities upon which most of the developing countries depend are subject to considerable short-term price fluctuation, rendering the foreign exchange receipts of the developing nations unstable and vulnerable. Development thus remains elusive. This situation keeps the developing nations in a state of dependency on the developed world.
CONCLUSION
The underdevelopment of the third world is marked by a number of common traits; distorted and highly dependent economies devoted to producing primary products for the developed world and to provide markets for their finished goods; traditional, rural social structures; high population growth; and widespread poverty. Nevertheless, the third world is sharply differentiated, for it includes countries on various levels of economic development. And despite the poverty of the countryside and the urban shantytowns, the ruling elites of most third world countries are wealthy.
References
Bag, A. K(1982): The Political Economy of Underdevelopment, Cambridge University Press.

Cardoso & Faletto, 1979, cited in Tausch, Sustainable Development and Turkey's Accession, about 1/6 of way through
Frank, A. G. (2005): “The Development of Underdevelopment” Critical Concepts in the Social Sciences.

G O'Donnell, El Estado Burocrático Autoritario: Triunfos, Derrotas y Crisis, Buenos Aires, Universidad de Belgrano, written 1982, published 1996, cited in Vernengo, Technology, Finance and Dependency.

Matias Vernengo, "Technology, Finance and Dependency: Latin American Radical Political Economy in Retospect", Working Paper No: 2004-06, University of Utah Dept. of Economics, 2004, p 5; retrieved July 2009.

QUESTION 4
Explain the significance of a sustained appeal by the United Nations to governments in developing countries for the promotion and protection of human rights.

INTRODUCTION
Human rights are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being. Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). These rights may exist as natural rights or as legal rights, in both national and international law.
Fifty years ago, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a bulwark against oppression and discrimination. In the wake of a devastating world war, which had witnessed some of the most barbarous crimes in human history, the Universal Declaration marked the first time that the rights and freedoms of individuals were set forth in such detail. It also represented the first international recognition that human rights and fundamental freedoms are applicable to every person, everywhere. In this sense, the Universal Declaration was a landmark achievement in world history. Today, it continues to affect people's lives and inspire human rights activism and legislation all over the world.
The Universal Declaration is remarkable in two fundamental aspects. In 1948, the then 58 Member States of the United Nations represented a range of ideologies, political systems and religious and cultural backgrounds, as well as different stages of economic development. The authors of the Declaration, themselves from different regions of the world, sought to ensure that the draft text would reflect these different cultural traditions and incorporate common values inherent in the world's principal legal systems and religious and philosophical traditions. Most important, the Universal Declaration was to be a common statement of mutual aspirations -- a shared vision of a more equitable and just world.
The success of their endeavour is demonstrated by the virtually universal acceptance of the Declaration. Today, the Universal Declaration, translated into nearly 250 national and local languages, is the best known and most cited human rights document in the world. The foundation of international human rights law, the Universal Declaration serves as a model for numerous international treaties and declarations and is incorporated in the constitutions and laws of many countries.
The doctrine of human rights in international practice, within international law, global and regional institutions, in the policies of states and the activities of non-governmental organizations has been a cornerstone of public policy around the world.
The quest to place human rights at the centre of the activities of the United Nations system has been a consistent focus of the Secretary-General’s UN reform agenda, since its launch in 1997.
In 2002, the UN Secretary-General then, identified the significance of the promotion and protection of human rights by building of strong human rights institutions at the country level as a principal objective of the United Nations. In particular, he proposed that the UN system at the national level (UN country teams) enhance collaboration to respond to the needs and requests of Member States in establishing and strengthening national human rights promotion and protection systems.

Today, there is widespread recognition that the 50-year investment in development and human rights promotion requires new impetus to secure broader realization of economic and social rights. Extreme poverty and exclusion from economic, political and cultural life continue to be the fate of millions in developing countries. Currently, there are 48 countries where more than one fifth of the population live in "absolute poverty", with little prospect of dramatic change in the short term. Breaking the cycle of poverty thus continues to be a formidable task for the international community. For this reason, the United Nations has increasingly emphasized the right to development, which can provide the basis for a strategy for a more comprehensive human rights programme.

In developing countries, the United Nations is thus enhancing its human rights programme by integrating a human rights focus into the entire range of the Organization's activities and this has consolidated into a single Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. This merger has given the new High Commissioner a solid institutional basis from which to lead, as the focal point of all system wide integration of human rights activities, the Organization's mission in the domain of human rights

These days in member states which include developing countries, virtually every United Nations body and specialized agency, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, is making efforts to incorporate the promotion or protection of human rights into its programmes and activities, including a gender perspective and an emphasis on the right to development.

In a bid to protect and promote human rights in developing countries, the United Nations believes that creating a pervasive culture of human rights requires a dynamic network of partnerships worldwide. The High Commissioner for Human Rights implements her broad mandate in partnership with a variety of actors, including the programmes and agencies within the United Nations system, Governments, regional organizations, academic communities, committed individuals and the NGO community. New types of partnerships are being developed with civil society.

UN endeavours to promote and protect human rights in developing nations has been encouraged since it is believed to be essential as this promotes equality and non-discrimination among all individuals in the enjoyment of their human rights, with a special focus on the disadvantaged and marginalized members of society.
Further more UN is encouraging participation and inclusion of every person and all sectors of civil society in developing countries in the enjoyment of civil, cultural, economic, political and social development in which human rights and fundamental freedoms can be realized.
Through UN’s efforts to realize accountability and the rule of law in developing countries, it has acted by supporting the capacity of States and other duty bearers to develop laws, regulations, policies and budgets that comply with agreed standards and goals and clearly stipulate the reciprocal responsibilities of a State and its citizens, as well as avenues for redress.
More still UN emphasizes promotion and protection of human rights in developing countries in that people should enjoy security from violence, and political freedom and participation. Indeed, these are core elements of human well being reflected in the Millennium Declaration. Democratic governance needs to be underpinned by a political regime that guarantees civil and political liberties as human rights, and that ensures participation of people and accountability of decision makers.

Considering the promotion and protection of human rights is a matter of priority for the international community in the auspices of UN where there is a unique opportunity to carry out a comprehensive analysis of the international human rights system and of the machinery for the protection of human rights, in order to enhance and thus promote a fuller observance of those rights, in a just and balanced manner.
It should be known that UN recognizes and affirms that all human rights derive from the dignity and worth inherent in the human person, and that the human person is the central subject of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and consequently should be the principal beneficiary and should participate actively in the realization of these rights and freedoms. This is also the major reason as to why UN emphasizes protection and promotion of human rights in developing countries.
Another reason for UN to encourage promotion and protection human rights in developing countries is that all people have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Finally UN encourages the promotion and protection of human rights in developing countries in that any reflection of good governance is the degree to which it delivers on the promise of human rights that is civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. The concept of good governance has been clarified by the work of the Commission on Human Rights. Its resolution 2000/64 expressly linked good governance to an enabling environment conducive to the enjoyment of human rights and "prompting growth and sustainable human development."

CONCLUSION
Building partnerships for human rights, preventing human rights violations and responding to emergencies, promoting human rights, together with democracy and development, as the guiding principles for lasting peace and coordinating the system-wide strengthening of the United Nations human rights program are reasons as to why UN encourages the promotion and protection of human rights in developing countries. This is a bedrock requirement for the realization of the Charter’s vision of a just and peaceful world.

REFERENCES
Beitz, R. (2009): The idea of human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Donnelly, J. (2003): Universal human rights in theory and practice (2nd ed.). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Freeman, M. (2002): Human rights: an interdisciplinary approach. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Littman, G. (2003): "Human Rights and Human Wrongs". National Review (New York)

Shaw, Malcom (2008): International Law (6th ed. ed.). Leiden: Cambridge University Press.

www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Compilation2.1en.pdf/20/11/2011

www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/22/11/2011

www.ausaid.gov.au/keyaid/humanrights/22/11/2011

QUESTION 5
Define democracy? Discuss the essence of democratic governance for African countries in fostering global partnership and development.
INTRODUCTION
Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law. It can also encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.
The term comes from the word Greek: δημοκρατία – (dēmokratía) "rule of the people",which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (Kratos) "power", in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.
According to some theories of democracy, popular sovereignty is the founding principle of such a system.However, the democratic principle has also been expressed as "the freedom to call something into being which did not exist before, which was not given… and which therefore, strictly speaking, could not be known." This type of freedom, which is connected to human "natality," or the capacity to begin anew, sees democracy as "not only a political system… [but] an ideal, an aspiration, really, intimately connected to and dependent upon a picture of what it is to be human—of what it is a human should be to be fully human." (Ake, C. (2001).
While there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.
Democratic Governance can be understood as the capacity of a society to define and establish policies and resolve their conflicts peacefully within the existing legal order. This is a necessary condition for the rule of law along with the separation of powers and a legal system that ensures the enjoyment of individual freedoms and rights -civil, social, political and cultural. This requires institutions based on the principles of equity, freedom, participation in decision making, accountability, and promoting the inclusion of the most vulnerable sectors of society (Larry, J(2006).
Democratic governance for African countries in fostering global partnership and development has been an ongoing phenomenon as here below presented;
First and foremost UNDP works on different thematic areas like Local Governance, Decentralization and Institutional Reform and Justice and Security Reform. This promotes knowledge management and the participation with inclusion especially of women, youth, persons with disabilities, Afro descendent people and indigenous groups, as well as the strengthening of government institutions to ensure better conditions for human development for African countries and even countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Secondly, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) is yet another initiative by Africa’s Heads of State and Governments intended to reverse, for good, the beggarly and highly embarrassing image of the continent through a ‘sustained engagement’ with the developed world. Among its many objectives, NEPAD seeks to halt the growing and deepening poverty of Africans by working towards altering the basis of the relationship between the rich North and the poor South. The initiative seeks a new global partnership based on shared responsibility and mutual interest through the instrumentality of political democracy and economic development on the continent.
It is also concerned to institute people-centered development via market-oriented economies capable of holding their own ground in the global village.
Furthermore, NEPAD is in search of building blocks to lay the foundation for a new politico-economic order, one able to permanently reverse the old cliché that ‘Africa is rich but Africans are poor’. The politico-economic blueprint of action is also meant to strengthen the capacity of the state with a view to making it an effective engineer, formulator and implementer of people-friendly programs and policies.
Finally, where various Lome EU-ACP agreements have virtually condemned Africa to the unenviable role of producing no more than primary commodities for Western industrial consumption, NEPAD proposes a frontal attack on the negative fall-outs of the continent’s integration into the global system as an extremely weak partner and a peripheral player (Robert,2007).

What the authors of NEPAD are saying, in brief, is that whilst it is imperative for Africa to clean up its act and begin to take its rightful place in the comity of continents, it cannot-and should not be expected to do it alone. Yet, little or nothing in the document suggests that the Western paradigm of development that has done everything except develop the continent is being challenged or contested.

My principal argument here, at once implicit and explicit, is that since Africa’s history of unequal relations with the developed world in the last three centuries or so is such that it has largely become a non-autonomous actor without the capacity to decide its own fate and future, NEPAD by being essentially a historical does not constitute an adequate response to the continent’s underdevelopment. It needs to be replaced by a more African-centered economic action plan that takes the continents history into account. That is to say a history that is two sided.
First, one needs to consider Africa’s relations with the West in terms of the slave trade, colonialism and neo-colonialism. In the latter’s contemporary rendition as “globalization,” the continent encounters the diffusion of Western capitalism and cultural values and a network of socio-economic and political institutions and relations that have made Africa’s political economy the most vulnerable to both positive and negative external influences. The second side of that history is the bad politics and venal leadership in much of the continent that were either ignored or supported by the West during the Cold War period—depending on their strategic or nuisance value but which have become costly in both political and economic terms after the formal end of the Cold War. As Zack-Williams, have argued, “Africa’s crisis is not natural or inevitable but a product of human history; a history forged in the complex interaction between locals and foreigners, states and societies, and domestic and imperial pressures.”
A major lacuna in NEPAD, I argue, is its inability or unwillingness, or both, to boldly account for Africa’s underdevelopment as a function of both the epochal consequences of colonialism/structural imperialism and bad politics of many of the continent’s political leaders. It may be true that “democracy in the form of multiparty elections was generally seen by African rulers as the price to pay for continued financial assistance rather than as the political modality that will make development more likely.”
However, it is also true that structural adjustment programs (SAPs) had greatly undermined the capacity of African states economically and strengthened their hands politically to deal with political discontent. To make sense of this methodological impasse, Alex de Waal’s notion of NEPAD as a ‘big idea’ that buys into “the promise of bold international action to resolve Africa’s crisis” is useful. Taken along with his argument that one of NEPAD’s strengths is that there is nothing essentially new about it, that what Africa needs is not so much new development models as “a proper application of lessons already learned,” we get the moral that the success of this African initiative seems to be hinged on a correct reading of Africa’s history as well as on adequate responses to that history.
CONCLUSION
History has it that the endevours to foster democracy in developing nations Africa inclusive do allow unscrupulous public officials to exploit opportunities for putting self above public interest, contrary to the spirit of democratic governance. Some advocates of globalization do point out that there are several benefits of globalization and its positive contribution to democracy, economic growth and development worldwide. The Critics however, do disagree and point to the impoverishment and devastation caused by globalization particularly in poor countries. It is clear that due to the various tensions between globalization, development and democracy, the benefits of globalization do not only remain elusive to many African countries, but globalization may indeed undermine human rights, impede development and be a threat to democracy in those countries. Moreover in the face of the unique challenges faced by African countries, while the Western world continues to be winners in the race for the benefits of globalization, most African counties continue to be relegated to the position of losers.
REFERENCES

Ake, C. (2001): Democracy and Development in Africa (Ibadan, et.al: Spectrum Books for African Center for Democratic Governance)

Colm, A. (2002): “Nepad should be driven by the people” Mail and Guardian.

Amuwo, ‘K. (1998): “Critical Perspectives on Structure, Nature and Role of the Public Bureaucracy in Nigeria” Quarterly Journal of Administration.

Larry, J(2006): Electoral systems and democracy. Johns Hopkins University.

Robert, W. (2007): Origins of democracy in ancient Greece. University of California Press.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy/16/11/2011

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy/16/11/2011

Counter-terrorism

2011-11-16T02:10:00.000-08:00

Counter-terrorism (also spelled counterterrorism) is the practices, tactics, techniques, and strategies that governments, militaries, police departments and corporations adopt to prevent or in response to terrorist threats and/or acts, both real and imputed.
The tactic of terrorism (used by terrorists) is available to insurgents and governments. Not all insurgents use terror as a tactic, and some choose not to use it because other tactics work better for them in a particular context. Individuals, such as Timothy McVeigh, may also engage in terrorist acts such as the Oklahoma City bombing.
If the terrorism is part of a broader insurgency, counter-terrorism may also form a part of a counter-insurgency doctrine, but political, economic, and other measures may focus more on the insurgency than the specific acts of terror. Foreign internal defense (FID) is a term used by several countries[citation needed] for programs either to suppress insurgency, or reduce the conditions under which insurgency could develop.
Counter-terrorism includes both the detection of potential acts and the response to related events.
Anti-terrorism versus counter-terrorism
Further information: Detentions following the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack
The concept of anti-terrorism emerges from a thorough examining of the concept of terrorism as well as an attempt to understand and articulate what constitutes terrorism in Western terms. In military contexts, terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. Terrorism may be a tactic in a war between nation-states, in a civil war, or in an insurgency.
Counter-terrorism refers to offensive strategies intended to prevent a belligerent, in a broader conflict, from successfully using the tactic of terrorism. The US military definition, compatible with the definitions used by NATO and many other militaries, is "Operations that include the offensive measures taken to prevent, deter, preempt, and respond to terrorism."[1] In other words, counter-terrorism is a set of techniques for denying an opponent the use of terrorism-based tactics, just as counter-air is a set of techniques for denying the opponent the use of attack aircraft.
Anti-terrorism is defensive, intended to reduce the chance of an attack using terrorist tactics at specific points, or to reduce the vulnerability of possible targets to such tactics. "Defensive measures used to reduce the vulnerability of individuals and property to terrorist acts, to include limited response and containment by local military and civilian forces."[1]

United States Customs and Border Protection officers, fully armed and armored for a counter-terrorism operation
To continue the analogy between air and terrorist capability, offensive anti-air missions attack the airfields of the opponent, while defensive anti-air uses anti-aircraft missiles to protect a point on one's own territory. The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict,[2] Sri Lankan Civil War,[3] and Colombian Civil War[4] are examples of conflicts where terrorism is present, along with other tactics, so that participants use counter- and anti-terrorism to limit the opponent's use of terror tactics. Units engaged in counter-terrorism include the US Navy Seals and Delta Force.
Planning for, detecting and neutralizing potential terrorist acts
Building a counter-terrorism plan involves all segments of a society or many government agencies. In dealing with foreign terrorists, the lead responsibility is usually at the national level. Because propaganda and indoctrination lie at the core of terrorism, understanding their profile and functions increases the ability to counter terrorism more effectively.
See the series of articles beginning with intelligence cycle management, and, in particular, intelligence analysis. HUMINT presents techniques of describing the social networks that make up terrorist groups. Also relevant are the motivations of the individual terrorist and the structure of cell systems used by recent non-national terrorist groups.
Most counter-terrorism strategies involve an increase in standard police and domestic intelligence. The central activities are traditional: interception of communications, and the tracing of persons. New technology has, however, expanded the range of military and law enforcement operations.
Domestic intelligence is often directed at specific groups, defined on the basis of origin or religion, which is a source of political controversy. Mass surveillance of an entire population raises objections on civil liberties grounds. homegrown terrorists, especially lone wolves are often harder to detect because of their citizenship or legal alien status and better ability to stay under the radar.
To select the effective action when terrorism appears to be more of an isolated event, the appropriate government organizations need to understand the source, motivation, methods of preparation, and tactics of terrorist groups. Good intelligence is at the heart of such preparation, as well as political and social understanding of any grievances that might be solved. Ideally, one gets information from inside the group, a very difficult challenge for HUMINT because operational terrorist cells are often small, with all members known to one another, perhaps even related.[5]
Counterintelligence is a great challenge with the security of cell-based systems, since the ideal, but nearly impossible, goal is to obtain a clandestine source within the cell. Financial tracking can play a role, as can communications intercept, but both of these approaches need to be balanced against legitimate expectations of privacy.
Legal contexts
Main article: Anti-terrorism legislation
In response to the growing legislation.
• United Kingdom
o The United Kingdom has had anti-terrorism legislation in place for more than thirty years. The Prevention of Violence Act 1939 was brought in response to an Irish Republican Army (IRA) campaign of violence under the S-Plan. This act had been allowed to expire in 1953 and was repealed in 1973 to be replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism Acts a response to the Troubles in Northern Ireland. From 1974 to 1989 the temporary provisions of the act were renewed annually.
o In 2000 the Acts were replaced with the more permanent Terrorism Act 2000, which contained many of their powers, and then the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
o The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was formally introduced into the Parliament November 19, 2001 two months after the September 11, 2001 attacks in America. It received royal assent and went into force on December 13, 2001. On December 16, 2004 the Law Lords ruled that Part 4 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but under the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998 it remained in force. The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was drafted to answer the Law Lords ruling and the Terrorism Act 2006 creates new offences related to terrorism, and amends existing ones. The Act was drafted in the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, and like its predecessors some of its terms have proven to be highly controversial.
• United States
o U.S. legal issues surrounding this issue include rulings on the domestic employment of Deadly force by law enforcement organizations.
o Search and seizure is governed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
o The US passed the USA PATRIOT Act after the 9/11 attacks, as well as a range of other legislation and executive orders.
o The Department of Homeland Security was established to consolidate domestic security agencies to coordinate anti-terrorism, as well as national response to major natural disasters and accidents.
o The Posse Comitatus Act limits domestic employment of the United States Army, requiring Presidential approval prior to deploying the Army. Pentagon policy also applies this limitation to the United States Marine Corps, United States Navy, and United States Air Force. The Department of Defense can be employed domestically on Presidential order, as was done during the Los Angeles riots of 1992, Hurricane Katrina and the Beltway Sniper incidents.
o External or international use of lethal force would require a Presidential finding.
• Australia
o Australia has passed several anti-terrorism acts. In 2004, a bill comprising three acts Anti-terrorism Act, 2004, (No 2) and (No 3) was passed. Then Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, introduced the Anti-terrorism bill, 2004 on March 31. He described it as "a bill to strengthen Australia's counter-terrorism laws in a number of respects — a task made more urgent following the recent tragic terrorist bombings in Spain." He said that Australia's counter-terrorism laws "require review and, where necessary, updating if we are to have a legal framework capable of safeguarding all Australians from the scourge of terrorism." The Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 supplemented the powers of the earlier acts. The Australian legislation allows police to detain suspects for up to two weeks without charge and to electronically track suspects for up to a year. The Australian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2005 included a "shoot-to-kill" clause. In a country with entrenched liberal democratic traditions, the measures are controversial and have been criticized by civil libertarians and Islamic groups.
• Israel
o On December 14, 2006 the Israeli Supreme Court ruled targeted killings were a permitted form of self defense.[6]
Terrorism and human rights
One of the primary difficulties of implementing effective counter-terrorist measures is the waning of civil liberties and individual privacy that such measures often entail, both for citizens of, and for those detained by states attempting to combat terror. At times, measures designed to tighten security have been seen as abuses of power or even violations of human rights.
Examples of these problems can include prolonged, incommunicado detention without judicial review; risk of subjecting to torture during the transfer, return and extradition of people between or within countries; and the adoption of security measures that restrain the rights or freedoms of citizens and breach principles of non-discrimination.[7] Examples include:
• In November 2003 Malaysia passed new counter-terrorism laws that were widely criticized by local human rights groups for being vague and overbroad. Critics claim that the laws put the basic rights of free expression, association, and assembly at risk. Malaysia persisted in holding around 100 alleged militants without trial, including five Malaysian students detained for alleged terrorist activity while studying in Karachi, Pakistan.[7]
• In November 2003 a Canadian-Syrian national, Maher Arar, alleged publicly that he had been tortured in a Syrian prison after being handed over to the Syrian authorities by U.S.[7]
• In December 2003 Colombia's congress approved legislation that would give the military the power to arrest, tap telephones and carry out searches without warrants or any previous judicial order.[7]
• Images of unpopular treatment of detainees in US custody in Iraq and other locations have encouraged international scrutiny of US operations in the war on terror.[8]
• Hundreds of foreign nationals remain in prolonged indefinite detention without charge or trial in Guantánamo Bay, despite international and US constitutional standards some groups believe outlaw such practices.[8]
• Hundreds of people suspected of connections with the Taliban or al Qa'eda remain in long-term detention in Pakistan or in US-controlled centers in Afghanistan.[8]
• China has used the "war on terror" to justify its policies in the predominantly Muslim Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region to stifle Uighur identity.[8]
• In Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Yemen and other countries, scores of people have been arrested and arbitrarily detained in connection with suspected terrorist acts or links to opposition armed groups.[8]
• Until 2005 eleven men remained in high security detention in the UK under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.[8]
Many would argue that such violations exacerbate rather than counter the terrorist threat.[7] Human rights advocates argue for the crucial role of human rights protection as an intrinsic part to fight against terrorism.[8] This suggests, as proponents of human security have long argued, that respecting human rights may indeed help us to incur security. Amnesty International included a section on confronting terrorism in the recommendations in the Madrid Agenda arising from the Madrid Summit on Democracy and Terrorism (Madrid 8–11 March 2005):
"Democratic principles and values are essential tools in the fight against terrorism. Any successful strategy for dealing with terrorism requires terrorists to be isolated. Consequently, the preference must be to treat terrorism as criminal acts to be handled through existing systems of law enforcement and with full respect for human rights and the rule of law. We recommend: (1) taking effective measures to make impunity impossible either for acts of terrorism or for the abuse of human rights in counter-terrorism measures. (2) the incorporation of human rights laws in all anti-terrorism programmes and policies of national governments as well as international bodies."[8]
While international efforts to combat terrorism have focused on the need to enhance cooperation between states, proponents of human rights (as well as human security) have suggested that more effort needs to be given to the effective inclusion of human rights protection as a crucial element in that cooperation. They argue that international human rights obligations do not stop at borders and a failure to respect human rights in one state may undermine its effectiveness in the international effort to cooperate to combat terrorism.[7]
[edit] Preemptive neutralization
Some countries see preemptive attacks as a legitimate strategy. This includes capturing, killing, or disabling suspected terrorists before they can mount an attack. Israel, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Russia have taken this approach, while Western European states generally do not.
Another major method of preemptive neutralization is interrogation of known or suspected terrorists to obtain information about specific plots, targets, the identity of other terrorists, whether or not the interrogation subjects himself is guilty of terrorist involvement. Sometimes more extreme methods are used to increase suggestibility, such as sleep deprivation or drugs. Such methods may lead captives to offer false information in an attempt to stop the treatment, or due to the confusion brought on by it. These methods are not tolerated by European powers. In 1978 the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the Ireland v. United Kingdom case that such methods amounted to a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment, and that such practices were in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights Article 3 (art. 3).
[edit] Non-military preventive actions
The human security paradigm outlines a non-military approach which aims to address the enduring underlying inequalities which fuel terrorist activity. Causal factors need to be delineated and measures implemented which allow equal access to resources and sustainability for all people. Such activities empower citizens providing 'freedom from fear' and 'freedom from want'.
This can take many forms including the provision of clean drinking water, education, vaccination programs, provision of food and shelter and protection from violence, military or otherwise. Successful human security campaigns have been characterized by the participation of a diverse group of actors including governments, NGOs, and citizens.
Foreign internal defense programs provide outside expert assistance to a threatened government. FID can involve both non-military and military aspects of counter-terrorism.
Another preventative action that has been used is the threat of and use of pork and pork products against radical religious groups that feel that contact with pork will render them unclean. The bodies of killed terrorists are daubed with lard and buried wrapped in pigskin.[9]
[edit] Military intervention
Terrorism has often been used to justify military intervention in countries like Pakistan and Iran where terrorists are said to be based. That was the main stated justification for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. It was also a stated justification for the second Russian invasion of Chechnya.
History has shown that military intervention has rarely been successful in stopping or preventing terrorism.[dubious – discuss] Although military action can disrupt a terrorist group's operations temporarily, it rarely ends the threat.[10]
Thus repression by the military in itself (particularly if it is not accompanied by other measures) usually leads to short term victories, but tend to be unsuccessful in the long run (e.g. the French's doctrine described in Roger Trinquier's book Modern War[11] used in Indochina and Algeria). However, new methods (see the new Counterinsurgency Field Manual[12]) such as those taken in Iraq have yet to be seen as beneficial or ineffectual.
[edit] Planning for response to terrorism
Police, fire, and emergency medical response organizations have obvious roles. Local firefighters and emergency medical personnel (often called "first responders") have plans for mitigating the effects of terrorist attacks, although police may deal with threats of such attacks.
[edit] Target-hardening
Whatever the target of terrorists, there are multiple ways of hardening the targets to prevent the terrorists from hitting their mark, or reducing the damage of attacks. One method is to place Jersey barrier or other sturdy obstacles outside tall or politically sensitive buildings to prevent car and truck bombing.
Aircraft cockpits are kept locked during flights, and have reinforced doors, which only the pilots in the cabin are capable of opening. English train stations removed their garbage cans in response to the Provisional IRA threat, as convenient locations for depositing bombs.
Scottish stations removed theirs after the 7th of July bombing of London as a precautionary measure. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority purchased bomb-resistant barriers after the September 11 terrorist attacks.
A more sophisticated target-hardening approach must consider industrial and other critical industrial infrastructure that could be attacked. Terrorists need not import chemical weapons if they can cause a major industrial accident such as the Bhopal disaster or the Halifax explosion. Industrial chemicals in manufacturing, shipping, and storage need greater protection, and some efforts are in progress.[13] To put this risk into perspective, the first major lethal chemical attack in WWI used 160 tons of chlorine. Industrial shipments of chlorine, widely used in water purification and the chemical industry, travel in 90 or 55 ton tank cars.
To give one more example, the North American electrical grid has already demonstrated, in the Northeast Blackout of 2003, its vulnerability to natural disasters coupled with inadequate, possibly insecure, SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) networks. Part of the vulnerability is due to deregulation leading to much more interconnection in a grid designed for only occasional power-selling between utilities. A very few terrorists, attacking key power facilities when one or more engineers have infiltrated the power control centers, could wreak havoc.
Equipping likely targets with containers (i.e., bags) of pig lard has been utilized to discourage attacks by Islamist suicide bombers. The technique was apparently used on a limited scale by British authorities in the 1940s.[14] The approach stems from the idea that Muslims perpetrating the attack would not want to be "soiled" by the lard in the moment prior to dying. The idea has been suggested more recently as a deterrent to suicide bombings in Israel.[15] However, the actual effectiveness of this tactic is probably limited as it is possible that a sympathetic Islamic scholar could issue a fatwa proclaiming that a suicide bomber would not be polluted by the swine products.
[edit] Command and control
In North America and other continents, for a threatened or completed terrorist attack, the Incident Command System (ICS) is apt to be invoked to control the various services that may need to be involved in the response. ICS has varied levels of escalation, such as might be needed for multiple incidents in a given area (e.g., the 2005 bombings in London or the 2004 Madrid train bombings, or all the way to a National Response Plan invocation if national-level resources are needed. National response, for example, might be needed for a nuclear, biological, radiological, or large chemical attack.
[edit] Damage mitigation
Fire departments, perhaps supplemented by public works agencies, utility providers (e.g., gas, water, electricity), and heavy construction contractors, are most apt to deal with the physical consequences of an attack.
[edit] Local security
Again under an incident command model, local police can isolate the incident area, reducing confusion, and specialized police units can conduct tactical operations against terrorists, often using specialized counter-terrorist tactical units. Bringing in such units will normally involve civil or military authority beyond the local level.
[edit] Medical services
Emergency medical services will bring the more seriously affected victims to hospitals, which will need to have mass casualty and triage plans in place.
Public health agencies, from local to national level, may be designated to deal with identification, and sometimes mitigation, of possible biological attacks, and sometimes chemical or radiologic contamination.
[edit] Counter-terrorism tactical units

Royal Malaysian Police Pasukan Gerakan Khas officers
Today, many countries have special units designated to handle terrorist threats. Besides various security agencies, there are elite tactical units, also known as special mission units, whose role is to directly engage terrorists and prevent terrorist attacks.
Such units perform both in preventive actions, hostage rescue and responding to on-going attacks. Countries of all sizes can have highly trained counter-terrorist teams. Tactics, techniques and procedures for manhunting are under constant development.
Most of these measures deal with terrorist attacks that affect an area, or threaten to do so. It is far harder to deal with assassination, or even reprisals on individuals, due to the short (if any) warning time and the quick exfiltration of the assassins.[16]
These units are specially trained in tactics and are very well equipped for CQB with emphasis on stealth and performing the mission with minimal casualties. The units include take-over force (assault teams), snipers, EOD experts, dog handlers and intelligence officers. See Counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism organizations for national command, intelligence, and incident mitigation.
The majority of counter-terrorism operations at the tactical level, are conducted by state, federal and national law enforcement agencies or intelligence agencies. In some countries, the military may be called in as a last resort. Obviously, for countries whose military are legally permitted to conduct police operations, this is a non-issue, and such counter-terrorism operations are conducted by their military.
See Counter-intelligence for command, intelligence and warning, and incident mitigation aspects of counter-terror.
Designing Anti-terrorism systems
The scope for Anti-terrorism systems is very large in physical terms (long borders, vast areas, high traffic volumes in busy cities, etc.) as well as in other dimensions, such as type and degree of terrorism threat, political and diplomatic ramifications, and legal issues. In this environment, the development of a persistent Anti-terrorism protection system is a daunting task. Such a system should bring together diverse state-of-the-art technologies to enable persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions, and enable potential actions. Designing such a system-of-systems comprises a major technological project.
A particular design problem for this system is that it will face many uncertainties in the future. The threat of terrorism may increase, decrease or remain the same, the type of terrorism and location are difficult to predict, and there are technological uncertainties. Yet we want to design a terrorism system conceived and designed today in order to prevent acts of terrorism for a decade or more. A potential solution is to incorporate flexibility into system design for the reason that the flexibility embedded can be exercised in future as uncertainty unfolds and updated information arrives. And the design and valuation of a protection system should not be based on a single scenario, but an array of scenarios. Flexibility can be incorporated in the design of the terrorism system in the form of options that can be exercised in the future when new information is available. Using these ‘real options’ will create a flexible Anti-terrorism system that is able to cope with new requirements that may arise.

TERRORISM

2011-11-16T00:34:00.001-08:00

According to American Heritage Dictionary, terrorism refers to the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: defines terrorism as systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. It has been used throughout history by political organizations of both the left and the right, by nationalist and ethnic groups, and by revolutionaries. Although usually thought of as a means of destabilizing or overthrowing existing political institutions, terror also has been employed by governments against their own people to suppress dissent; examples include the reigns of certain Roman emperors, the French Revolution, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and Argentina during the "dirty war" of the 1970s.

Reasons why it is increasingly difficult to root out terrorist networks and their activities across the world
Terrorism's impact has been magnified by the deadliness and technological sophistication of modern-day weapons and the capability of the media to disseminate news of such attacks instantaneously throughout the world. The deadliest terrorist attack ever occurred in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, when members of al-Qaeda terrorist network hijacked four commercial airplanes and crashed two of them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City and one into the Pentagon building near Washington, D.C.; the fourth plane crashed near Pittsburgh, Pa. The crashes resulted in the collapse of much of the World Trade Center complex, the destruction of part of the southwest side of the Pentagon, and the deaths of some 3,000 people.
The first is because it is rooted in religion. This can cause people to act in ways that are very illogical or counter-intuitive (e.g. willingness to blow yourself up). Looking back at history, religious clashes have often been the most difficult to resolve and end because people feel so strongly about their beliefs. Because terrorists are under the belief that they are doing god's will, they will go to extremes beyond what is usually seen to accomplish their mission.
Another reason is the difference in cultures. While many of the local population is not activly involved in terrorist activities, they are much less likely to aid those fighting terrorism because those fighting terrorism are still seen as outsiders, where the terrorists come from the same religion, country, etc.

Lastly, it is because it is a non-conventional war. Almost guerrilla like tactics. These types of fights (whether it be the US fighting the British during the revolutionary war, or fighting in the jungles of Vietnam) are always more difficult. It is not a traditional battle (e.g. the US civil war, WWII, etc) where the two face-off, one side wins, the loser agrees to give up their fight, and the two sides move forward looking towards the future.
Terrorism operates against the basic rules of engagement Most notably - it operates against civilians, and sometimes from within civilian population.It strikes at random, which makes it harder to defend against.Its impact is not only the physical damage it causes but mostly the effect on day-to-day life.
Even defending against terror using conventional means contribute to its psychological effect. or these reasons conventional war-like methods are ineffective against terrorism.In an overly-"politically-correct" society, simple risk-assessment statistics-based deductions becomes "racial profiling", which makes life even harder.
Because we umm illegally kidnap suspected terrorists and keep them indefinitely without charge in torture camps (have tortured over 40 suspected terrorists to death), we occupy foreign sovereign nations and continue to undermine democracies for economic interests? Might be a start as to why it has increased sevenfold since 2001. I would think these things would encourage more terrorism and new followers of their 'hate'.
CONCLUSION
Just generally, why is terrorism, especially Islamic Fundamentalists, so hard to fight? Is it because of the invention of more advanced and sophisticated weapons? Is it because of tactics? Is it because nuclear missiles have placed a humongous threat on the fight on terrorism? Please help..

Fighting Terrorism: Do's and Don'ts for a Superpower

2011-11-16T00:22:00.000-08:00

1. Be feared!

2. Identify the type of terrorists you face, and know your enemy as well as you possibly can. Although tactics may be similar, strategies for dealing with practical vs. apocalyptic terrorists can differ widely. Practical terrorists may have legitimate grievances that deserve consideration, although their methods cannot be tolerated. Apocalyptic terrorists, no matter their rhetoric, seek your destruction and must be killed to the last man. The apt metaphor is cancer: you cannot hope for success if you only cut out part of the tumor. For the apocalyptic terrorist, evading your efforts can easily be turned into a public triumph. Our bloodiest successes will create far fewer terrorists and sympathizers than our failures.

3. Do not be afraid to be powerful. Cold War-era gambits of proportionate response and dialog may have some utility in dealing with practical terrorists, but they are counter-productive in dealing with apocalyptic terrorists. Our great strengths are wealth and raw power. When we fail to bring those strengths to bear, we contribute to our own defeat. For a superpower to think small, which has been our habit across the last decade, at least, is self-defeating folly. Our responses to terrorist acts should make the world gasp!

4. Speak bluntly. Euphemisms are interpreted as weakness by our enemies and mislead the American people. Speak of killing terrorists and destroying their organizations. Timid speech leads to timid actions. Explain when necessary, but do not apologize. Expressions of regret are never seen as a mark of decency by terrorists or their supporters, but only as a sign that our will is faltering. Blame the terrorists as the root cause whenever operations have unintended negative consequences. Never go on the rhetorical defensive.

5. Concentrate on winning the propaganda war where it is winnable. Focus on keeping or enhancing the support from allies and well-disposed clients, but do not waste an inordinate amount of effort trying to win unwinnable hearts and minds. Convince hostile populations through victory.

6. Do not be drawn into a public dialog with terrorists, especially not with apocalyptic terrorists. You cannot win. You legitimize the terrorists by addressing them even through a third medium, and their extravagant claims will resound more successfully on their own home ground than anything you can say. Ignore absurd accusations, and never let the enemy's claims slow or sidetrack you. The terrorist wants you to react, and your best means of unbalancing him and his plan is to ignore his accusations.

7. Avoid planning creep. Within our vast bureaucratic system, too many voices compete for attention and innumerable agendas, often selfish and personal - intrude on any attempt to act decisively. Focus on the basic mission: the destruction of the terrorists with all the moral, intellectual and practical rigor you can bring to bear. All other issues, from future nation building, to alliance consensus, to humanitarian concerns are secondary.

8. Maintain resolve. Especially in the Middle East and Central Asia, experts and diplomats will always present you with a multitude of good reasons for doing nothing, or for doing too little (or for doing exactly the wrong thing). Fight as hard as you can within the system to prevent diplomats from gaining influence over the strategic campaign. Although their intentions are often good, our diplomats and their obsolete strategic views are the terrorist's unwitting allies and diplomats are extremely jealous of military success and military authority in their region (where their expertise is never as deep or subtle as they believe it to be). Beyond the problem with our diplomats, the broader forces of bureaucratic entropy are an internal threat. The counter-terrorist campaign must be not only resolute, but constantly self-rejuvenating in ideas, techniques, military and inter-agency combinations, and sheer energy. Old hands must be stimulated constantly by new ideas.

9. When in doubt, hit harder than you think necessary. Success will be forgiven. Even the best-intentioned failure will not. When military force is used against terrorist networks, it should be used with such power that it stuns even our allies. We must get over our cowardice in means. While small-scale raids and other knifepoint operations are useful against individual targets, broader operations should be overwhelming. Of course, targeting limitations may inhibit some efforts but whenever possible, maximum force should be used in simultaneous operations at the very beginning of a campaign. Do not hesitate to supplement initial target lists with extensive bombing attacks on nothing if they can increase the initial psychological impact. Demonstrate power whenever you can. Show; don't tell!

10. Whenever legal conditions permit, kill terrorists on the spot (do not give them a chance to surrender, if you can help it). Contrary to academic wisdom, the surest way to make a martyr of a terrorist is to capture, convict and imprison him, leading to endless efforts by sympathizers to stage kidnappings, hijacking and other events intended to liberate the imprisoned terrorist(s). This is war, not law enforcement.

11. Never listen to those who warn that ferocity on our part reduces us to the level of the terrorists. That is the argument of the campus, not of the battlefield, and it insults America's service members and the American people. Historically, we have proven, time after time, that we can do a tough, dirty job for our country without any damage to our nation's moral fabric (Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not interfere with American democracy, values or behavior).

12. Spare and protect innocent civilians whenever possible, but: do not let the prospect of civilian casualties interfere with ultimate mission accomplishment. This is a fight to protect the American people, and we must do so whatever the cost, or the price in American lives may be devastating. In a choice between them, and us the choice is always us.

13. Do not allow the terrorists to hide behind religion. Apocalyptic terrorists cite religion as a justification for attacking us; in turn, we cannot let them hide behind religious holidays, taboos, strictures or even sacred terrain. We must establish a consistent reputation for relentless pursuit and destruction of those who kill our citizens. Until we do this, our hesitation will continue to strengthen our enemy's ranks and his resolve.

14. Do not allow third parties to broker a peace, a truce, or any pause in operations. One of the most difficult challenges in fighting terrorism on a global scale is the drag produced by nervous allies. We must be single-minded. The best thing we can do for our allies in the long-term is to be so resolute and so strong that they value their alliance with us all the more. We must recognize the innate strength of our position and stop allowing regional leaders with counterproductive local agendas to subdue or dilute our efforts.

15. Don't flinch. If an operation goes awry and friendly casualties are unexpectedly high, immediately bolster morale and the military's image by striking back swiftly in a manner that inflicts the maximum possible number of casualties on the enemy and his supporters. Hit back as graphically as possible, to impress upon the local and regional players that you weren't badly hurt or deterred in the least.

16. Do not worry about alienating already-hostile populations. --(ED ADDED, "OR ANTI-WAR SENATORS ASPIRING TO BECOME PRESIDENT OF OUR GREAT NATION.")

17. Whenever possible, humiliate your enemy in the eyes of his own people. Do not try to use reasonable arguments against him. Shame him publicly, in any way you can. Create doubt where you cannot excite support. Most apocalyptic terrorists, especially, come from cultures of male vanity. Disgrace them at every opportunity. Done successfully, this both degrades them in the eyes of their followers and supporters, and provokes the terrorist to respond, increasing his vulnerability.

18. If the terrorists hide, strike what they hold dear, using clandestine means and, whenever possible, foreign agents to provoke them to break cover and react. Do not be squeamish. Your enemy is not. Subtlety is not superpower strength but the raw power to do that, which is necessary, is our great advantage. We forget that, while the world may happily chide or accuse us-or complain of our inhumanity-no one can stop us if we maintain our strength of will. Much of the world will complain no matter what we do. Hatred of America is the default position of failed individuals and failing states around the world, in every civilization, and there is nothing we can do to change their minds. We refuse to understand how much of humanity will find excuses for evil, so long as the evil strikes those who are more successful than the apologists themselves. This is as true of American academics, whose eagerness to declare our military efforts a failure is unflagging, or European clerics, who still cannot forgive America's magnanimity at the end of World War II, as it is of unemployed Egyptians or Pakistanis. The psychologically marginalized are at least as dangerous as the physically deprived.

19. Do not allow the terrorists sanctuary in any country, at any time, under any circumstances. Counter-terrorist operations must, above all, be relentless. This does not necessarily mean that military operations will be constantly underway sometimes it will be surveillance efforts, or deception plans, or operations by other agencies. But the overall effort must never pause for breath. We must be faster, more resolute, more resourceful and, ultimately, even more uncompromising than our enemies.

20. Never declare victory. Announce successes and milestones. But never give the terrorists a chance to embarrass you after a public pronouncement that the war is over.

21. Impress upon the minds of terrorists and potential terrorists everywhere, and upon the populations and governments inclined to support them, that American retaliation will be powerful and uncompromising. You will never deter fanatics, but you can frighten those who might support, harbor or attempt to use terrorists for their own ends. Our basic task in the world today is to restore a sense of American power, capabilities and resolve. We must be hard, or we will be struck wherever we are soft. It is folly for charity to precede victory. First win, then unclench your fist.

22. Do everything possible to make terrorists and their active supporters live in terror themselves. Turn the tide psychologically and practically. While this will not deter hard-core apocalyptic terrorists, it will dissipate their energies as they try to defend themselves and fear will deter many less-committed supporters of terror. Do not be distracted by the baggage of the term assassination. This is a war. The enemy, whether a hijacker or a financier, violates the laws of war by his refusal to wear a uniform and by purposely targeting civilians. He is by definition a war criminal. On our soil, he is either a spy or a saboteur, and not entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution. Those who abet terrorists must grow afraid to turn out the lights to go to sleep.

23. Never accept the consensus of the Washington intelligentsia, which looks backward to past failures, not forward to future successes.

24. In dealing with Islamic apocalyptic terrorists, remember that their most cherished symbols are fewer and far more vulnerable than are the West's. Ultimately, no potential target can be regarded as off-limits when the United States is threatened with mass casualties. Worry less about offending foreign sensibilities and more about protecting Americans.

25. Do not look for answers in recent history, which is still unclear and subject to personal emotion. Begin with the study of the classical world, specifically Rome, which is the nearest model to the present-day United States. Mild with subject peoples, to whom they brought the rule of ethical law, the Romans in their rise and at their apogee were implacable with their enemies. The utter destruction of Carthage brought centuries of local peace, while the later empire's attempts to appease barbarians consistently failed!

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

2011-11-15T03:12:00.000-08:00

The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom—and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. In the twenty-first century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. People everywhere want to be able to speak freely; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children—male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society—and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages.

Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence. In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage.We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty. In a world that is safe, people will be able to make their own lives better.We will defend the peace by fighting terrorists and tyrants.We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. We will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent.

Defending our Nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal Government. Today, that task has changed dramatically. Enemies in the past needed great armies and great industrial capabilities to endanger America. Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank. Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies against us.

To defeat this threat we must make use of every tool in our arsenal—military power, better homeland defenses, law enforcement, intelligence, and vigorous efforts to cut off terrorist financing. The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. America will help nations that need our assistance in combating terror. And America will hold to account nations that are compromised by terror, including those who harbor terrorists— because the allies of terror are the enemies of civilization. The United States and countries cooperating with us must not allow the terrorists to develop new home bases. Together, we will seek to deny them sanctuary at every turn.

The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to succeed.We will build defenses against ballistic missiles and other means of delivery. We will cooperate with other nations to deny, contain, and curtail our enemies’ efforts to acquire dangerous technologies. And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. So we must be prepared to defeat our enemies’ plans, using the best intelligence and proceeding with deliberation. History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act. In the new world we have entered, the only path to peace and security is the path of action.

As we defend the peace, we will also take advantage of an historic opportunity to preserve the peace. Today, the international community has the best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the seventeenth century to build a world where great powers compete in peace instead of continually prepare for war. Today, the world’s great powers find ourselves on the same side— united by common dangers of terrorist violence and chaos. The United States will build on these common interests to promote global security.We are also increasingly united by common values. Russia is in the midst of a hopeful transition, reaching for its democratic future and a partner in the war on terror. Chinese leaders are discovering that economic freedom is the only source of national wealth. In time, they will find that social and political freedom is the only source of national greatness. America will encourage the advancement of democracy and economic openness in both nations, because these are the best foundations for domestic stability and international order.We will strongly resist aggression from other great powers—even as we welcome their peaceful pursuit of prosperity, trade, and cultural advancement.

Finally, the United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom across the globe.We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world. The events of September 11, 2001, taught us that weak states, like Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our national interests as strong states. Poverty does not make poor people into terrorists and murderers. Yet poverty, weak institutions, and corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartels within their borders.

The United States will stand beside any nation determined to build a better future by seeking the rewards of liberty for its people. Free trade and free markets have proven their ability to lift whole societies out of poverty—so the United States will work with individual nations, entire regions, and the entire global trading community to build a world that trades in freedom and therefore grows in prosperity. The United States will deliver greater development assistance through the New Millennium Challenge Account to nations that govern justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom.We will also continue to lead the world in efforts to reduce the terrible toll of HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases.

In building a balance of power that favors freedom, the United States is guided by the conviction that all nations have important responsibilities. Nations that enjoy freedom must actively fight terror. Nations that depend on international stability must help prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Nations that seek international aid must govern themselves wisely, so that aid is well spent. For freedom to thrive, accountability must be expected and required.

We are also guided by the conviction that no nation can build a safer, better world alone. Alliances and multilateral institutions can multiply the strength of freedom-loving nations. The United States is committed to lasting institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the Organization of American States, and NATO as well as other long-standing alliances. Coalitions of the willing can augment these permanent institutions. In all cases, international obligations are to be taken seriously. They are not to be undertaken symbolically to rally support for an ideal without furthering its attainment.

Freedom is the non-negotiable demand of human dignity; the birthright of every person—in every civilization. Throughout history, freedom has been threatened by war and terror; it has been challenged by the clashing wills of powerful states and the evil designs of tyrants; and it has been tested by widespread poverty and disease. Today, humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to further freedom’s triumph over all these foes. The United States welcomes our responsibility to lead in this great mission.

George W. Bush
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 17, 2002

I. Overview of America's International Strategy

"Our Nation's cause has always been larger than our Nation's defense. We fight, as we always fight, for a just peace—a peace that favors liberty. We will defend the peace against the threats from terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. And we will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent."

President Bush
West Point, New York
June 1, 2002

The United States possesses unprecedented— and unequaled—strength and influence in the world. Sustained by faith in the principles of liberty, and the value of a free society, this position comes with unparalleled responsibilities, obligations, and opportunity. The great strength of this nation must be used to promote a balance of power that favors freedom.

For most of the twentieth century, the world was divided by a great struggle over ideas: destructive totalitarian visions versus freedom and equality.

That great struggle is over. The militant visions of class, nation, and race which promised utopia and delivered misery have been defeated and discredited. America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few.We must defeat these threats to our Nation, allies, and friends.

This is also a time of opportunity for America. We will work to translate this moment of influence into decades of peace, prosperity, and liberty. The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests. The aim of this strategy is to help make the world not just safer but better. Our goals on the path to progress are clear: political and economic freedom, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for human dignity.

And this path is not America’s alone. It is open to all. To achieve these goals, the United States will:

* champion aspirations for human dignity;
* strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends;
* work with others to defuse regional conflicts;
* prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends, with weapons of mass destruction;
* ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade;
* expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy;
* develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power; and
* transform America’s national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century.

II. Champion Aspirations for Human Dignity

"Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong. I disagree. Different circumstances require different methods, but not different moralities."

President Bush
West Point, New York
June 1, 2002

In pursuit of our goals, our first imperative is to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. Fathers and mothers in all societies want their children to be educated and to live free from poverty and violence. No people on earth yearn to be oppressed, aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police.

America must stand firmly for the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the absolute power of the state; free speech; freedom of worship; equal justice; respect for women; religious and ethnic tolerance; and respect for private property.

These demands can be met in many ways. America’s constitution has served us well. Many other nations, with different histories and cultures, facing different circumstances, have successfully incorporated these core principles into their own systems of governance. History has not been kind to those nations which ignored or flouted the rights and aspirations of their people.

America’s experience as a great multi-ethnic democracy affirms our conviction that people of many heritages and faiths can live and prosper in peace. Our own history is a long struggle to live up to our ideals. But even in our worst moments, the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence were there to guide us. As a result, America is not just a stronger, but is a freer and more just society.

Today, these ideals are a lifeline to lonely defenders of liberty. And when openings arrive, we can encourage change—as we did in central and eastern Europe between 1989 and 1991, or in Belgrade in 2000.When we see democratic processes take hold among our friends in Taiwan or in the Republic of Korea, and see elected leaders replace generals in Latin America and Africa, we see examples of how authoritarian systems can evolve, marrying local history and traditions with the principles we all cherish.

Embodying lessons from our past and using the opportunity we have today, the national security strategy of the United States must start from these core beliefs and look outward for possibilities to expand liberty.

Our principles will guide our government’s decisions about international cooperation, the character of our foreign assistance, and the allocation of resources. They will guide our actions and our words in international bodies.

We will:

* speak out honestly about violations of the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity using our voice and vote in international institutions to advance freedom;

* use our foreign aid to promote freedom and support those who struggle non-violently for it, ensuring that nations moving toward democracy are rewarded for the steps they take;

* make freedom and the development of democratic institutions key themes in our bilateral relations, seeking solidarity and cooperation from other democracies while we press governments that deny human rights to move toward a better future; and

* take special efforts to promote freedom of religion and conscience and defend it from encroachment by repressive governments.

We will champion the cause of human dignity and oppose those who resist it.

III. Strengthen Alliances to Defeat Global Terrorism and Work to Prevent Attacks Against Us and Our Friends

“Just three days removed from these events, Americans do not yet have the distance of history. But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil.War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. The conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing.”

President Bush
Washington, D.C. (The National Cathedral)
September 14, 2001

The United States of America is fighting a war against terrorists of global reach. The enemy is not a single political regime or person or religion or ideology. The enemy is terrorism— premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents.

In many regions, legitimate grievances prevent the emergence of a lasting peace. Such grievances deserve to be, and must be, addressed within a political process. But no cause justifies terror. The United States will make no concessions to terrorist demands and strike no deals with them.We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them.

The struggle against global terrorism is different from any other war in our history. It will be fought on many fronts against a particularly elusive enemy over an extended period of time. Progress will come through the persistent accumulation of successes—some seen, some unseen.

Today our enemies have seen the results of what civilized nations can, and will, do against regimes that harbor, support, and use terrorism to achieve their political goals. Afghanistan has been liberated; coalition forces continue to hunt down the Taliban and al-Qaida. But it is not only this battlefield on which we will engage terrorists. Thousands of trained terrorists remain at large with cells in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and across Asia.

Our priority will be first to disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations of global reach and attack their leadership; command, control, and communications; material support; and finances. This will have a disabling effect upon the terrorists’ ability to plan and operate.

We will continue to encourage our regional partners to take up a coordinated effort that isolates the terrorists. Once the regional campaign localizes the threat to a particular state, we will help ensure the state has the military, law enforcement, political, and financial tools necessary to finish the task.

The United States will continue to work with our allies to disrupt the financing of terrorism.We will identify and block the sources of funding for terrorism, freeze the assets of terrorists and those who support them, deny terrorists access to the international financial system, protect legitimate charities from being abused by terrorists, and prevent the movement of terrorists’ assets through alternative financial networks.

However, this campaign need not be sequential to be effective, the cumulative effect across all regions will help achieve the results we seek. We will disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations by:

* direct and continuous action using all the elements of national and international power. Our immediate focus will be those terrorist organizations of global reach and any terrorist or state sponsor of terrorism which attempts to gain or use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or their precursors;
* defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders.While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of selfdefense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country; and
* denying further sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to terrorists by convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities. We will also wage a war of ideas to win the battle against international terrorism. This includes:
* using the full influence of the United States, and working closely with allies and friends, to make clear that all acts of terrorism are illegitimate so that terrorism will be viewed in the same light as slavery, piracy, or genocide: behavior that no respectable government can condone or support and all must oppose;
* supporting moderate and modern government, especially in the Muslim world, to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation;
* diminishing the underlying conditions that spawn terrorism by enlisting the international community to focus its efforts and resources on areas most at risk; and
* using effective public diplomacy to promote the free flow of information and ideas to kindle the hopes and aspirations of freedom of those in societies ruled by the sponsors of global terrorism.

While we recognize that our best defense is a good offense, we are also strengthening America’s homeland security to protect against and deter attack. This Administration has proposed the largest government reorganization since the Truman Administration created the National Security Council and the Department of Defense. Centered on a new Department of Homeland Security and including a new unified military command and a fundamental reordering of the FBI, our comprehensive plan to secure the homeland encompasses every level of government and the cooperation of the public and the private sector.

This strategy will turn adversity into opportunity. For example, emergency management systems will be better able to cope not just with terrorism but with all hazards. Our medical system will be strengthened to manage not just bioterror, but all infectious diseases and mass-casualty dangers. Our border controls will not just stop terrorists, but improve the efficient movement of legitimate traffic.

While our focus is protecting America, we know that to defeat terrorism in today’s globalized world we need support from our allies and friends.Wherever possible, the United States will rely on regional organizations and state powers to meet their obligations to fight terrorism. Where governments find the fight against terrorism beyond their capacities, we will match their willpower and their resources with whatever help we and our allies can provide.

As we pursue the terrorists in Afghanistan, we will continue to work with international organizations such as the United Nations, as well as non-governmental organizations, and other countries to provide the humanitarian, political, economic, and security assistance necessary to rebuild Afghanistan so that it will never again abuse its people, threaten its neighbors, and provide a haven for terrorists.

In the war against global terrorism, we will never forget that we are ultimately fighting for our democratic values and way of life. Freedom and fear are at war, and there will be no quick or easy end to this conflict. In leading the campaign against terrorism, we are forging new, productive international relationships and redefining existing ones in ways that meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.

IV. Work with others to Defuse Regional Conflicts

"We build a world of justice, or we will live in a world of coercion. The magnitude of our shared responsibilities makes our disagreements look so small."

President Bush
Berlin, Germany
May 23, 2002

Concerned nations must remain actively engaged in critical regional disputes to avoid explosive escalation and minimize human suffering. In an increasingly interconnected world, regional crisis can strain our alliances, rekindle rivalries among the major powers, and create horrifying affronts to human dignity.When violence erupts and states falter, the United States will work with friends and partners to alleviate suffering and restore stability.

No doctrine can anticipate every circumstance in which U.S. action—direct or indirect—is warranted.We have finite political, economic, and military resources to meet our global priorities. The United States will approach each case with these strategic principles in mind:

* The United States should invest time and resources into building international relationships and institutions that can help manage local crises when they emerge.

* The United States should be realistic about its ability to help those who are unwilling or unready to help themselves.Where and when people are ready to do their part, we will be willing to move decisively.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical because of the toll of human suffering, because of America’s close relationship with the state of Israel and key Arab states, and because of that region’s importance to other global priorities of the United States. There can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. The United States will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

The United States, the international donor community, and the World Bank stand ready to work with a reformed Palestinian government on economic development, increased humanitarian assistance, and a program to establish, finance, and monitor a truly independent judiciary. If Palestinians embrace democracy, and the rule of law, confront corruption, and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a Palestinian state.

Israel also has a large stake in the success of a democratic Palestine. Permanent occupation threatens Israel’s identity and democracy. So the United States continues to challenge Israeli leaders to take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state. As there is progress towards security, Israel forces need to withdraw fully to positions they held prior to September 28, 2000. And consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop. As violence subsides, freedom of movement should be restored, permitting innocent Palestinians to resume work and normal life. The United States can play a crucial role but, ultimately, lasting peace can only come when Israelis and Palestinians resolve the issues and end the conflict between them.

In South Asia, the United States has also emphasized the need for India and Pakistan to resolve their disputes. This Administration invested time and resources building strong bilateral relations with India and Pakistan. These strong relations then gave us leverage to play a constructive role when tensions in the region became acute.With Pakistan, our bilateral relations have been bolstered by Pakistan’s choice to join the war against terror and move toward building a more open and tolerant society. The Administration sees India’s potential to become one of the great democratic powers of the twentyfirst century and has worked hard to transform our relationship accordingly. Our involvement in this regional dispute, building on earlier investments in bilateral relations, looks first to concrete steps by India and Pakistan that can help defuse military confrontation.

Indonesia took courageous steps to create a working democracy and respect for the rule of law. By tolerating ethnic minorities, respecting the rule of law, and accepting open markets, Indonesia may be able to employ the engine of opportunity that has helped lift some of its neighbors out of poverty and desperation. It is the initiative by Indonesia that allows U.S. assistance to make a difference.

In the Western Hemisphere we have formed flexible coalitions with countries that share our priorities, particularly Mexico, Brazil, Canada, Chile, and Colombia. Together we will promote a truly democratic hemisphere where our integration advances security, prosperity, opportunity, and hope.We will work with regional institutions, such as the Summit of the Americas process, the Organization of American States (OAS), and the Defense Ministerial of the Americas for the benefit of the entire hemisphere.

Parts of Latin America confront regional conflict, especially arising from the violence of drug cartels and their accomplices. This conflict and unrestrained narcotics trafficking could imperil the health and security of the United States. Therefore we have developed an active strategy to help the Andean nations adjust their economies, enforce their laws, defeat terrorist organizations, and cut off the supply of drugs, while—as important—we work to reduce the demand for drugs in our own country.

In Colombia, we recognize the link between terrorist and extremist groups that challenge the security of the state and drug trafficking activities that help finance the operations of such groups. We are working to help Colombia defend its democratic institutions and defeat illegal armed groups of both the left and right by extending effective sovereignty over the entire national territory and provide basic security to the Colombian people.

In Africa, promise and opportunity sit side by side with disease, war, and desperate poverty. This threatens both a core value of the United States— preserving human dignity—and our strategic priority—combating global terror. American interests and American principles, therefore, lead in the same direction: we will work with others for an African continent that lives in liberty, peace, and growing prosperity. Together with our European allies, we must help strengthen Africa’s fragile states, help build indigenous capability to secure porous borders, and help build up the law enforcement and intelligence infrastructure to deny havens for terrorists.

An ever more lethal environment exists in Africa as local civil wars spread beyond borders to create regional war zones. Forming coalitions of the willing and cooperative security arrangements are key to confronting these emerging transnational threats.

Africa’s great size and diversity requires a security strategy that focuses on bilateral engagement and builds coalitions of the willing. This Administration will focus on three interlocking strategies for the region:

* countries with major impact on their neighborhood such as South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, and Ethiopia are anchors for regional engagement and require focused attention;

* coordination with European allies and international institutions is essential for constructive conflict mediation and successful peace operations; and

* Africa’s capable reforming states and sub-regional organizations must be strengthened as the primary means to address transnational threats on a sustained basis.

Ultimately the path of political and economic freedom presents the surest route to progress in sub-Saharan Africa, where most wars are conflicts over material resources and political access often tragically waged on the basis of ethnic and religious difference. The transition to the African Union with its stated commitment to good governance and a common responsibility for democratic political systems offers opportunities to strengthen democracy on the continent.

V. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction

“The gravest danger to freedom lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology—when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends—and we will oppose them with all our power.”

President Bush
West Point, New York
June 1, 2002

The nature of the Cold War threat required the United States—with our allies and friends—to emphasize deterrence of the enemy’s use of force, producing a grim strategy of mutual assured destruction.With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, our security environment has undergone profound transformation.

Having moved from confrontation to cooperation as the hallmark of our relationship with Russia, the dividends are evident: an end to the balance of terror that divided us; an historic reduction in the nuclear arsenals on both sides; and cooperation in areas such as counterterrorism and missile defense that until recently were inconceivable.

But new deadly challenges have emerged from rogue states and terrorists. None of these contemporary threats rival the sheer destructive power that was arrayed against us by the Soviet Union. However, the nature and motivations of these new adversaries, their determination to obtain destructive powers hitherto available only to the world’s strongest states, and the greater likelihood that they will use weapons of mass destruction against us, make today’s security environment more complex and dangerous.

In the 1990s we witnessed the emergence of a small number of rogue states that, while different in important ways, share a number of attributes. These states:

* brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of the rulers;
* display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate international treaties to which they are party;
* are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes;
* sponsor terrorism around the globe; and
* reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it stands.

At the time of the Gulf War, we acquired irrefutable proof that Iraq’s designs were not limited to the chemical weapons it had used against Iran and its own people, but also extended to the acquisition of nuclear weapons and biological agents. In the past decade North Korea has become the world’s principal purveyor of ballistic missiles, and has tested increasingly capable missiles while developing its own WMD arsenal. Other rogue regimes seek nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as well. These states’ pursuit of, and global trade in, such weapons has become a looming threat to all nations.

We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. Our response must take full advantage of strengthened alliances, the establishment of new partnerships with former adversaries, innovation in the use of military forces, modern technologies, including the development of an effective missile defense system, and increased emphasis on intelligence collection and analysis.

Our comprehensive strategy to combat WMD includes:

* Proactive counterproliferation efforts. We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed.We must ensure that key capabilities—detection, active and passive defenses, and counterforce capabilities—are integrated into our defense transformation and our homeland security systems. Counterproliferation must also be integrated into the doctrine, training, and equipping of our forces and those of our allies to ensure that we can prevail in any conflict with WMD-armed adversaries.
* Strengthened nonproliferation efforts to prevent rogue states and terrorists from acquiring the materials, technologies, and expertise necessary for weapons of mass destruction. We will enhance diplomacy, arms control, multilateral export controls, and threat reduction assistance that impede states and terrorists seeking WMD, and when necessary, interdict enabling technologies and materials.We will continue to build coalitions to support these efforts, encouraging their increased political and financial support for nonproliferation and threat reduction programs. The recent G-8 agreement to commit up to $20 billion to a global partnership against proliferation marks a major step forward.
* Effective consequence management to respond to the effects of WMD use, whether by terrorists or hostile states. Minimizing the effects of WMD use against our people will help deter those who possess such weapons and dissuade those who seek to acquire them by persuading enemies that they cannot attain their desired ends. The United States must also be prepared to respond to the effects of WMD use against our forces abroad, and to help friends and allies if they are attacked.

It has taken almost a decade for us to comprehend the true nature of this new threat. Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today’s threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries’ choice of weapons, do not permit that option.We cannot let our enemies strike first.

In the Cold War, especially following the Cuban missile crisis, we faced a generally status quo, risk-averse adversary. Deterrence was an effective defense. But deterrence based only upon the threat of retaliation is less likely to work against leaders of rogue states more willing to take risks, gambling with the lives of their people, and the wealth of their nations.

* In the Cold War, weapons of mass destruction were considered weapons of last resort whose use risked the destruction of those who used them. Today, our enemies see weapons of mass destruction as weapons of choice. For rogue states these weapons are tools of intimidation and military aggression against their neighbors. These weapons may also allow these states to attempt to blackmail the United States and our allies to prevent us from deterring or repelling the aggressive behavior of rogue states. Such states also see these weapons as their best means of overcoming the conventional superiority of the United States.
* Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness. The overlap between states that sponsor terror and those that pursue WMD compels us to action.

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.

The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. To support preemptive options, we will:

* build better, more integrated intelligence capabilities to provide timely, accurate information on threats, wherever they may emerge;
* coordinate closely with allies to form a common assessment of the most dangerous threats; and
* continue to transform our military forces to ensure our ability to conduct rapid and precise operations to achieve decisive results.

The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat to the United States or our allies and friends. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just.

VI. Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade

"When nations close their markets and opportunity is hoarded by a privileged few, no amount-no amount-of development aid is ever enough. When nations respect their people, open markets, invest in better health and education, every dollar of aid, every dollar of trade revenue and domestic capital is used more effectively."

President Bush
Monterrey, Mexico
March 22, 2002

A strong world economy enhances our national security by advancing prosperity and freedom in the rest of the world. Economic growth supported by free trade and free markets creates new jobs and higher incomes. It allows people to lift their lives out of poverty, spurs economic and legal reform, and the fight against corruption, and it reinforces the habits of liberty.

We will promote economic growth and economic freedom beyond America’s shores. All governments are responsible for creating their own economic policies and responding to their own economic challenges.We will use our economic engagement with other countries to underscore the benefits of policies that generate higher productivity and sustained economic growth, including:

* pro-growth legal and regulatory policies to encourage business investment, innovation, and entrepreneurial activity;

* tax policies—particularly lower marginal tax rates—that improve incentives for work and investment;

* rule of law and intolerance of corruption so that people are confident that they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their economic endeavors;

* strong financial systems that allow capital to be put to its most efficient use;

* sound fiscal policies to support business activity;

* investments in health and education that improve the well-being and skills of the labor force and population as a whole; and

* free trade that provides new avenues for growth and fosters the diffusion of technologies and ideas that increase productivity and opportunity.

The lessons of history are clear: market economies, not command-and-control economies with the heavy hand of government, are the best way to promote prosperity and reduce poverty. Policies that further strengthen market incentives and market institutions are relevant for all economies—industrialized countries, emerging markets, and the developing world.

A return to strong economic growth in Europe and Japan is vital to U.S. national security interests. We want our allies to have strong economies for their own sake, for the sake of the global economy, and for the sake of global security. European efforts to remove structural barriers in their economies are particularly important in this regard, as are Japan’s efforts to end deflation and address the problems of non-performing loans in the Japanese banking system.We will continue to use our regular consultations with Japan and our European partners—including through the Group of Seven (G-7)—to discuss policies they are adopting to promote growth in their economies and support higher global economic growth.

Improving stability in emerging markets is also key to global economic growth. International flows of investment capital are needed to expand the productive potential of these economies. These flows allow emerging markets and developing countries to make the investments that raise living standards and reduce poverty. Our long-term objective should be a world in which all countries have investment-grade credit ratings that allow them access to international capital markets and to invest in their future.

We are committed to policies that will help emerging markets achieve access to larger capital flows at lower cost. To this end, we will continue to pursue reforms aimed at reducing uncertainty in financial markets.We will work actively with other countries, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the private sector to implement the G-7 Action Plan negotiated earlier this year for preventing financial crises and more effectively resolving them when they occur.

The best way to deal with financial crises is to prevent them from occurring, and we have encouraged the IMF to improve its efforts doing so.We will continue to work with the IMF to streamline the policy conditions for its lending and to focus its lending strategy on achieving economic growth through sound fiscal and monetary policy, exchange rate policy, and financial sector policy.

The concept of "free trade" arose as a moral principle even before it became a pillar of economics. If you can make something that others value, you should be able to sell it to them. If others make something that you value, you should be able to buy it. This is real freedom, the freedom for a person—or a nation—to make a living. To promote free trade, the Unites States has developed a comprehensive strategy:

* Seize the global initiative. The new global trade negotiations we helped launch at Doha in November 2001 will have an ambitious agenda, especially in agriculture, manufacturing, and services, targeted for completion in 2005. The United States has led the way in completing the accession of China and a democratic Taiwan to the World Trade Organization.We will assist Russia’s preparations to join the WTO.

* Press regional initiatives. The United States and other democracies in the Western Hemisphere have agreed to create the Free Trade Area of the Americas, targeted for completion in 2005. This year the United States will advocate market-access negotiations with its partners, targeted on agriculture, industrial goods, services, investment, and government procurement.We will also offer more opportunity to the poorest continent, Africa, starting with full use of the preferences allowed in the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and leading to free trade.

* Move ahead with bilateral free trade agreements. Building on the free trade agreement with Jordan enacted in 2001, the Administration will work this year to complete free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. Our aim is to achieve free trade agreements with a mix of developed and developing countries in all regions of the world. Initially, Central America, Southern Africa, Morocco, and Australia will be our principal focal points.

* Renew the executive-congressional partnership. Every administration’s trade strategy depends on a productive partnership with Congress. After a gap of 8 years, the Administration reestablished majority support in the Congress for trade liberalization by passing Trade Promotion Authority and the other market opening measures for developing countries in the Trade Act of 2002. This Administration will work with Congress to enact new bilateral, regional, and global trade agreements that will be concluded under the recently passed Trade Promotion Authority.

* Promote the connection between trade and development. Trade policies can help developing countries strengthen property rights, competition, the rule of law, investment, the spread of knowledge, open societies, the efficient allocation of resources, and regional integration—all leading to growth, opportunity, and confidence in developing countries. The United States is implementing The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act to provide market-access for nearly all goods produced in the 35 countries of sub- Saharan Africa.We will make more use of this act and its equivalent for the Caribbean Basin and continue to work with multilateral and regional institutions to help poorer countries take advantage of these opportunities. Beyond market access, the most important area where trade intersects with poverty is in public health.We will ensure that the WTO intellectual property rules are flexible enough to allow developing nations to gain access to critical medicines for extraordinary dangers like HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.

* Enforce trade agreements and laws against unfair practices. Commerce depends on the rule of law; international trade depends on enforceable agreements. Our top priorities are to resolve ongoing disputes with the European Union, Canada, and Mexico and to make a global effort to address new technology, science, and health regulations that needlessly impede farm exports and improved agriculture. Laws against unfair trade practices are often abused, but the international community must be able to address genuine concerns about government subsidies and dumping. International industrial espionage which undermines fair competition must be detected and deterred.

* Help domestic industries and workers adjust. There is a sound statutory framework for these transitional safeguards which we have used in the agricultural sector and which we are using this year to help the American steel industry. The benefits of free trade depend upon the enforcement of fair trading practices. These safeguards help ensure that the benefits of free trade do not come at the expense of American workers. Trade adjustment assistance will help workers adapt to the change and dynamism of open markets.

* Protect the environment and workers. The United States must foster economic growth in ways that will provide a better life along with widening prosperity.We will incorporate labor and environmental concerns into U.S. trade negotiations, creating a healthy “network” between multilateral environmental agreements with the WTO, and use the International Labor Organization, trade preference programs, and trade talks to improve working conditions in conjunction with freer trade.

* Enhance energy security. We will strengthen our own energy security and the shared prosperity of the global economy by working with our allies, trading partners, and energy producers to expand the sources and types of global energy supplied, especially in the Western Hemisphere, Africa, Central Asia, and the Caspian region.We will also continue to work with our partners to develop cleaner and more energy efficient technologies.

Economic growth should be accompanied by global efforts to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations associated with this growth, containing them at a level that prevents dangerous human interference with the global climate. Our overall objective is to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of our economy, cutting such emissions per unit of economic activity by 18 percent over the next 10 years, by the year 2012. Our strategies for attaining this goal will be to:

* remain committed to the basic U.N. Framework Convention for international cooperation;

* obtain agreements with key industries to cut emissions of some of the most potent greenhouse gases and give transferable credits to companies that can show real cuts;

* develop improved standards for measuring and registering emission reductions;

* promote renewable energy production and clean coal technology, as well as nuclear power—which produces no greenhouse gas emissions, while also improving fuel economy for U.S. cars and trucks;

* increase spending on research and new conservation technologies, to a total of $4.5 billion—the largest sum being spent on climate change by any country in the world and a $700 million increase over last year’s budget; and

* assist developing countries, especially the major greenhouse gas emitters such as China and India, so that they will have the tools and resources to join this effort and be able to grow along a cleaner and better path.

VII. Expand the Circle of Development by Opening Societies and Building the Infrastructure of Democracy

"In World War II we fought to make the world safer, then worked to rebuild it. As we wage war today to keep the world safe from terror, we must also work to make the world a better place for all its citizens."

President Bush
Washington, D.C. (Inter-American Development Bank)
March 14, 2002

A world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 a day, is neither just nor stable. Including all of the world’s poor in an expanding circle of development—and opportunity—is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of U.S. international policy.

Decades of massive development assistance have failed to spur economic growth in the poorest countries.Worse, development aid has often served to prop up failed policies, relieving the pressure for reform and perpetuating misery. Results of aid are typically measured in dollars spent by donors, not in the rates of growth and poverty reduction achieved by recipients. These are the indicators of a failed strategy.

Working with other nations, the United States is confronting this failure.We forged a new consensus at the U.N. Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey that the objectives of assistance—and the strategies to achieve those objectives—must change.

This Administration’s goal is to help unleash the productive potential of individuals in all nations. Sustained growth and poverty reduction is impossible without the right national policies. Where governments have implemented real policy changes, we will provide significant new levels of assistance. The United States and other developed countries should set an ambitious and specific target: to double the size of the world’s poorest economies within a decade.

The United States Government will pursue these major strategies to achieve this goal:

* Provide resources to aid countries that have met the challenge of national reform. We propose a 50 percent increase in the core development assistance given by the United States.While continuing our present programs, including humanitarian assistance based on need alone, these billions of new dollars will form a new Millennium Challenge Account for projects in countries whose governments rule justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom. Governments must fight corruption, respect basic human rights, embrace the rule of law, invest in health care and education, follow responsible economic policies, and enable entrepreneurship. The Millennium Challenge Account will reward countries that have demonstrated real policy change and challenge those that have not to implement reforms.

* Improve the effectiveness of the World Bank and other development banks in raising living standards. The United States is committed to a comprehensive reform agenda for making the World Bank and the other multilateral development banks more effective in improving the lives of the world’s poor.We have reversed the downward trend in U.S. contributions and proposed an 18 percent increase in the U.S. contributions to the International Development Association (IDA)—the World Bank’s fund for the poorest countries—and the African Development Fund. The key to raising living standards and reducing poverty around the world is increasing productivity growth, especially in the poorest countries.We will continue to press the multilateral development banks to focus on activities that increase economic productivity, such as improvements in education, health, rule of law, and private sector development. Every project, every loan, every grant must be judged by how much it will increase productivity growth in developing countries.

* Insist upon measurable results to ensure that development assistance is actually making a difference in the lives of the world’s poor. When it comes to economic development, what really matters is that more children are getting a better education, more people have access to health care and clean water, or more workers can find jobs to make a better future for their families.We have a moral obligation to measure the success of our development assistance by whether it is delivering results. For this reason, we will continue to demand that our own development assistance as well as assistance from the multilateral development banks has measurable goals and concrete benchmarks for achieving those goals. Thanks to U.S. leadership, the recent IDA replenishment agreement will establish a monitoring and evaluation system that measures recipient countries’ progress. For the first time, donors can link a portion of their contributions to IDA to the achievement of actual development results, and part of the U.S. contribution is linked in this way.We will strive to make sure that the World Bank and other multilateral development banks build on this progress so that a focus on results is an integral part of everything that these institutions do.

* Increase the amount of development assistance that is provided in the form of grants instead of loans. Greater use of results-based grants is the best way to help poor countries make productive investments, particularly in the social sectors, without saddling them with ever-larger debt burdens. As a result of U.S. leadership, the recent IDA agreement provided for significant increases in grant funding for the poorest countries for education, HIV/AIDS, health, nutrition, water, sanitation, and other human needs. Our goal is to build on that progress by increasing the use of grants at the other multilateral development banks.We will also challenge universities, nonprofits, and the private sector to match government efforts by using grants to support development projects that show results.

* Open societies to commerce and investment. Trade and investment are the real engines of economic growth. Even if government aid increases, most money for development must come from trade, domestic capital, and foreign investment. An effective strategy must try to expand these flows as well. Free markets and free trade are key priorities of our national security strategy.

* Secure public health. The scale of the public health crisis in poor countries is enormous. In countries afflicted by epidemics and pandemics like HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, growth and development will be threatened until these scourges can be contained. Resources from the developed world are necessary but will be effective only with honest governance, which supports prevention programs and provides effective local infrastructure. The United States has strongly backed the new global fund for HIV/AIDS organized by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and its focus on combining prevention with a broad strategy for treatment and care. The United States already contributes more than twice as much money to such efforts as the next largest donor. If the global fund demonstrates its promise, we will be ready to give even more.

* Emphasize education. Literacy and learning are the foundation of democracy and development. Only about 7 percent of World Bank resources are devoted to education. This proportion should grow. The United States will increase its own funding for education assistance by at least 20 percent with an emphasis on improving basic education and teacher training in Africa. The United States can also bring information technology to these societies, many of whose education systems have been devastated by HIV/AIDS.

* Continue to aid agricultural development. New technologies, including biotechnology, have enormous potential to improve crop yields in developing countries while using fewer pesticides and less water. Using sound science, the United States should help bring these benefits to the 800 million people, including 300 million children, who still suffer from hunger and malnutrition.

VIII. Develop Agendas for Cooperative Action with the Other Main Centers of Global Power

“We have our best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the 17th century to build a world where the great powers compete in peace instead of prepare for war.”

President Bush
West Point, New York
June 1, 2002

America will implement its strategies by organizing coalitions—as broad as practicable— of states able and willing to promote a balance of power that favors freedom. Effective coalition leadership requires clear priorities, an appreciation of others’ interests, and consistent consultations among partners with a spirit of humility.

There is little of lasting consequence that the United States can accomplish in the world without the sustained cooperation of its allies and friends in Canada and Europe. Europe is also the seat of two of the strongest and most able international institutions in the world: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which has, since its inception, been the fulcrum of transatlantic and inter-European security, and the European Union (EU), our partner in opening world trade.

The attacks of September 11 were also an attack on NATO, as NATO itself recognized when it invoked its Article V self-defense clause for the first time. NATO’s core mission—collective defense of the transatlantic alliance of democracies —remains, but NATO must develop new structures and capabilities to carry out that mission under new circumstances. NATO must build a capability to field, at short notice, highly mobile, specially trained forces whenever they are needed to respond to a threat against any member of the alliance.

The alliance must be able to act wherever our interests are threatened, creating coalitions under NATO’s own mandate, as well as contributing to mission-based coalitions. To achieve this, we must:

* expand NATO’s membership to those democratic nations willing and able to share the burden of defending and advancing our common interests;
* ensure that the military forces of NATO nations have appropriate combat contributions to make in coalition warfare;
* develop planning processes to enable those contributions to become effective multinational fighting forces;
* take advantage of the technological opportunities and economies of scale in our defense spending to transform NATO military forces so that they dominate potential aggressors and diminish our vulnerabilities;
* streamline and increase the flexibility of command structures to meet new operational demands and the associated requirements of training, integrating, and experimenting with new force configurations; and
* maintain the ability to work and fight together as allies even as we take the necessary steps to transform and modernize our forces.

If NATO succeeds in enacting these changes, the rewards will be a partnership as central to the security and interests of its member states as was the case during the Cold War.We will sustain a common perspective on the threats to our societies and improve our ability to take common action in defense of our nations and their interests. At the same time, we welcome our European allies’ efforts to forge a greater foreign policy and defense identity with the EU, and commit ourselves to close consultations to ensure that these developments work with NATO.We cannot afford to lose this opportunity to better prepare the family of transatlantic democracies for the challenges to come.

The attacks of September 11 energized America’s Asian alliances. Australia invoked the ANZUS Treaty to declare the September 11 was an attack on Australia itself, following that historic decision with the dispatch of some of the world’s finest combat forces for Operation Enduring Freedom. Japan and the Republic of Korea provided unprecedented levels of military logistical support within weeks of the terrorist attack.We have deepened cooperation on counterterrorism with our alliance partners in Thailand and the Philippines and received invaluable assistance from close friends like Singapore and New Zealand.

The war against terrorism has proven that America’s alliances in Asia not only underpin regional peace and stability, but are flexible and ready to deal with new challenges. To enhance our Asian alliances and friendships, we will:

* look to Japan to continue forging a leading role in regional and global affairs based on our common interests, our common values, and our close defense and diplomatic cooperation;
* work with South Korea to maintain vigilance towards the North while preparing our alliance to make contributions to the broader stability of the region over the longer term;
* build on 50 years of U.S.-Australian alliance cooperation as we continue working together to resolve regional and global problems—as we have so many times from the Battle of the Coral Sea to Tora Bora;
* maintain forces in the region that reflect our commitments to our allies, our requirements, our technological advances, and the strategic environment; and
* build on stability provided by these alliances, as well as with institutions such as ASEAN and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, to develop a mix of regional and bilateral strategies to manage change in this dynamic region.

We are attentive to the possible renewal of old patterns of great power competition. Several potential great powers are now in the midst of internal transition—most importantly Russia, India, and China. In all three cases, recent developments have encouraged our hope that a truly global consensus about basic principles is slowly taking shape.

With Russia, we are already building a new strategic relationship based on a central reality of the twenty-first century: the United States and Russia are no longer strategic adversaries. The Moscow Treaty on Strategic Reductions is emblematic of this new reality and reflects a critical change in Russian thinking that promises to lead to productive, long-term relations with the Euro-Atlantic community and the United States. Russia’s top leaders have a realistic assessment of their country’s current weakness and the policies—internal and external—needed to reverse those weaknesses. They understand, increasingly, that Cold War approaches do not serve their national interests and that Russian and American strategic interests overlap in many areas.

United States policy seeks to use this turn in Russian thinking to refocus our relationship on emerging and potential common interests and challenges.We are broadening our already extensive cooperation in the global war on terrorism. We are facilitating Russia’s entry into the World Trade Organization, without lowering standards for accession, to promote beneficial bilateral trade and investment relations.We have created the NATO-Russia Council with the goal of deepening security cooperation among Russia, our European allies, and ourselves.We will continue to bolster the independence and stability of the states of the former Soviet Union in the belief that a prosperous and stable neighborhood will reinforce Russia’s growing commitment to integration into the Euro-Atlantic community.

At the same time, we are realistic about the differences that still divide us from Russia and about the time and effort it will take to build an enduring strategic partnership. Lingering distrust of our motives and policies by key Russian elites slows improvement in our relations. Russia’s uneven commitment to the basic values of free-market democracy and dubious record in combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remain matters of great concern. Russia’s very weakness limits the opportunities for cooperation. Nevertheless, those opportunities are vastly greater now than in recent years—or even decades.

The United States has undertaken a transformation in its bilateral relationship with India based on a conviction that U.S. interests require a strong relationship with India.We are the two largest democracies, committed to political freedom protected by representative government. India is moving toward greater economic freedom as well.We have a common interest in the free flow of commerce, including through the vital sea lanes of the Indian Ocean. Finally, we share an interest in fighting terrorism and in creating a strategically stable Asia.

Differences remain, including over the development of India’s nuclear and missile programs, and the pace of India’s economic reforms. But while in the past these concerns may have dominated our thinking about India, today we start with a view of India as a growing world power with which we have common strategic interests. Through a strong partnership with India, we can best address any differences and shape a dynamic future.

The United States relationship with China is an important part of our strategy to promote a stable, peaceful, and prosperous Asia-Pacific region.We welcome the emergence of a strong, peaceful, and prosperous China. The democratic development of China is crucial to that future. Yet, a quarter century after beginning the process of shedding the worst features of the Communist legacy, China’s leaders have not yet made the next series of fundamental choices about the character of their state. In pursuing advanced military capabilities that can threaten its neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region, China is following an outdated path that, in the end, will hamper its own pursuit of national greatness. In time, China will find that social and political freedom is the only source of that greatness.

The United States seeks a constructive relationship with a changing China.We already cooperate well where our interests overlap, including the current war on terrorism and in promoting stability on the Korean peninsula. Likewise, we have coordinated on the future of Afghanistan and have initiated a comprehensive dialogue on counterterrorism and similar transitional concerns. Shared health and environmental threats, such as the spread of HIV/AIDS, challenge us to promote jointly the welfare of our citizens.

Addressing these transnational threats will challenge China to become more open with information, promote the development of civil society, and enhance individual human rights. China has begun to take the road to political openness, permitting many personal freedoms and conducting village-level elections, yet remains strongly committed to national one-party rule by the Communist Party. To make that nation truly accountable to its citizen’s needs and aspirations, however, much work remains to be done. Only by allowing the Chinese people to think, assemble, and worship freely can China reach its full potential.

Our important trade relationship will benefit from China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, which will create more export opportunities and ultimately more jobs for American farmers, workers, and companies. China is our fourth largest trading partner, with over $100 billion in annual two-way trade. The power of market principles and the WTO’s requirements for transparency and accountability will advance openness and the rule of law in China to help establish basic protections for commerce and for citizens. There are, however, other areas in which we have profound disagreements. Our commitment to the self-defense of Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act is one. Human rights is another.We expect China to adhere to its nonproliferation commitments.We will work to narrow differences where they exist, but not allow them to preclude cooperation where we agree.

The events of September 11, 2001, fundamentally changed the context for relations between the United States and other main centers of global power, and opened vast, new opportunities.With our long-standing allies in Europe and Asia, and with leaders in Russia, India, and China, we must develop active agendas of cooperation lest these relationships become routine and unproductive.

Every agency of the United States Government shares the challenge.We can build fruitful habits of consultation, quiet argument, sober analysis, and common action. In the long-term, these are the practices that will sustain the supremacy of our common principles and keep open the path of progress.

IX. Transform America's National Security Institutions to Meet the Challenges and Opportunities of the Twenty-First Century

"Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch its source. America is successful because of the hard work, creativity, and enterprise of our people."

President Bush
Washington, D.C. (Joint Session of Congress)
September 20, 2001

The major institutions of American national security were designed in a different era to meet different requirements. All of them must be transformed.

It is time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength.We must build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge. Our military’s highest priority is to defend the United States. To do so effectively, our military must:

* assure our allies and friends;

* dissuade future military competition;

* deter threats against U.S. interests, allies, and friends; and

* decisively defeat any adversary if deterrence fails.

The unparalleled strength of the United States armed forces, and their forward presence, have maintained the peace in some of the world’s most strategically vital regions. However, the threats and enemies we must confront have changed, and so must our forces. A military structured to deter massive Cold War-era armies must be transformed to focus more on how an adversary might fight rather than where and when a war might occur. We will channel our energies to overcome a host of operational challenges.

The presence of American forces overseas is one of the most profound symbols of the U.S. commitments to allies and friends. Through our willingness to use force in our own defense and in defense of others, the United States demonstrates its resolve to maintain a balance of power that favors freedom. To contend with uncertainty and to meet the many security challenges we face, the United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. forces.

Before the war in Afghanistan, that area was low on the list of major planning contingencies. Yet, in a very short time, we had to operate across the length and breadth of that remote nation, using every branch of the armed forces.We must prepare for more such deployments by developing assets such as advanced remote sensing, long-range precision strike capabilities, and transformed maneuver and expeditionary forces. This broad portfolio of military capabilities must also include the ability to defend the homeland, conduct information operations, ensure U.S. access to distant theaters, and protect critical U.S. infrastructure and assets in outer space.

Innovation within the armed forces will rest on experimentation with new approaches to warfare, strengthening joint operations, exploiting U.S. intelligence advantages, and taking full advantage of science and technology.We must also transform the way the Department of Defense is run, especially in financial management and recruitment and retention. Finally, while maintaining near-term readiness and the ability to fight the war on terrorism, the goal must be to provide the President with a wider range of military options to discourage aggression or any form of coercion against the United States, our allies, and our friends.

We know from history that deterrence can fail; and we know from experience that some enemies cannot be deterred. The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy—whether a state or non-state actor—to impose its will on the United States, our allies, or our friends.We will maintain the forces sufficient to support our obligations, and to defend freedom. Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.

Intelligence—and how we use it—is our first line of defense against terrorists and the threat posed by hostile states. Designed around the priority of gathering enormous information about a massive, fixed object—the Soviet bloc—the intelligence community is coping with the challenge of following a far more complex and elusive set of targets.

We must transform our intelligence capabilities and build new ones to keep pace with the nature of these threats. Intelligence must be appropriately integrated with our defense and law enforcement systems and coordinated with our allies and friends.We need to protect the capabilities we have so that we do not arm our enemies with the knowledge of how best to surprise us. Those who would harm us also seek the benefit of surprise to limit our prevention and response options and to maximize injury.

We must strengthen intelligence warning and analysis to provide integrated threat assessments for national and homeland security. Since the threats inspired by foreign governments and groups may be conducted inside the United States, we must also ensure the proper fusion of information between intelligence and law enforcement.

Initiatives in this area will include:

* strengthening the authority of the Director of Central Intelligence to lead the development and actions of the Nation’s foreign intelligence capabilities;

* establishing a new framework for intelligence warning that provides seamless and integrated warning across the spectrum of threats facing the nation and our allies;

* continuing to develop new methods of collecting information to sustain our intelligence advantage;

* investing in future capabilities while working to protect them through a more vigorous effort to prevent the compromise of intelligence capabilities; and

* collecting intelligence against the terrorist danger across the government with allsource analysis.

As the United States Government relies on the armed forces to defend America’s interests, it must rely on diplomacy to interact with other nations. We will ensure that the Department of State receives funding sufficient to ensure the success of American diplomacy. The State Department takes the lead in managing our bilateral relationships with other governments. And in this new era, its people and institutions must be able to interact equally adroitly with non-governmental organizations and international institutions. Officials trained mainly in international politics must also extend their reach to understand complex issues of domestic governance around the world, including public health, education, law enforcement, the judiciary, and public diplomacy.

Our diplomats serve at the front line of complex negotiations, civil wars, and other humanitarian catastrophes. As humanitarian relief requirements are better understood, we must also be able to help build police forces, court systems, and legal codes, local and provincial government institutions, and electoral systems. Effective international cooperation is needed to accomplish these goals, backed by American readiness to play our part.

Just as our diplomatic institutions must adapt so that we can reach out to others, we also need a different and more comprehensive approach to public information efforts that can help people around the world learn about and understand America. The war on terrorism is not a clash of civilizations. It does, however, reveal the clash inside a civilization, a battle for the future of the Muslim world. This is a struggle of ideas and this is an area where America must excel.

We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept.We will work together with other nations to avoid complications in our military operations and cooperation, through such mechanisms as multilateral and bilateral agreements that will protect U.S. nationals from the ICC.We will implement fully the American Servicemembers Protection Act, whose provisions are intended to ensure and enhance the protection of U.S. personnel and officials.

We will make hard choices in the coming year and beyond to ensure the right level and allocation of government spending on national security. The United States Government must strengthen its defenses to win this war. At home, our most important priority is to protect the homeland for the American people.

Today, the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs is diminishing. In a globalized world, events beyond America’s borders have a greater impact inside them. Our society must be open to people, ideas, and goods from across the globe. The characteristics we most cherish—our freedom, our cities, our systems of movement, and modern life—are vulnerable to terrorism. This vulnerability will persist long after we bring to justice those responsible for the September 11 attacks. As time passes, individuals may gain access to means of destruction that until now could be wielded only by armies, fleets, and squadrons. This is a new condition of life.We will adjust to it and thrive—in spite of it.

In exercising our leadership, we will respect the values, judgment, and interests of our friends and partners. Still, we will be prepared to act apart when our interests and unique responsibilities require.When we disagree on particulars, we will explain forthrightly the grounds for our concerns and strive to forge viable alternatives.We will not allow such disagreements to obscure our determination to secure together, with our allies and our friends, our shared fundamental interests and values.

Ultimately, the foundation of American strength is at home. It is in the skills of our people, the dynamism of our economy, and the resilience of our institutions. A diverse, modern society has inherent, ambitious, entrepreneurial energy. Our strength comes from what we do with that energy. That is where our national security begin

WHAT IS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

2011-11-15T03:08:00.000-08:00

sustainable development means building our communities so that we can all live comfortably without consuming all of our resources. We make an impact on our environment through how we live our lives. Another way to say this is that we all leave an ecological footprint. Imagine yourself in a garden. If you were to run around the garden wearing heavy boots, you would probably do a lot of damage to the fruits and vegetables growing there. If you were to walk carefully through the garden in bare feet, you would be able to eat just as many fruits and vegetables as the person wearing heavy boots, but you would also be leaving a lot more for yourself and others to eat the next day. It is the same thing with our resources. Living in a sustainable way means leaving more of things we all need to share, like water, energy, clean air and forests, for future generations.

Sustainable development is not just about conserving our resources: it is about changing our culture to make conservation a way of life. The earth has a natural balance, and over consumption of its resources, whether it is polluting or diverting water, or over-using land for building or agriculture or mining, or clear cutting of forests, or over-fishing the ocean, or burning too many fossil fuels throws that balance off and makes it difficult for the earth to renew itself. Living sustainably means only consuming as much as we need, while making sure to never consume so much that it cannot be replaced. Changing habits in daily or community life, in government or in business is often referred to as “greening practices”. The term “green” is used to refer to anything that is built for or working towards a sustainable, environmentally-friendly future.

Most people would like to live in a sustainable community, but they cannot afford to do so because current business models encourage activities that do not take into account future problems. Sustainable development creates long-term economic stability, but does not create short-term profits. Governments, businesses, and consumers all need to change their habits for sustainable development to be the norm, not the exception. By co-operating in sustainable development, we can all look forward to a green future.

Combating Cross-Generational Sex in Uganda

2011-11-03T03:11:00.000-07:00

(February 2009) Cross-generational sex—or Sugar Daddy syndrome—is a pattern of sexual behavior between young women and much older men that brings increased health risks and consequences for young women. In most cases of cross-generational sex, the women are ages 15 to 19 and unmarried; their male partners are at least 10 years older. Although most cross-generational sex is based on the exchange of favors or material goods, it is different from commercial sex or prostitution.

Cross-generational sex is not limited to sub-Saharan Africa, but most research on the practice has been conducted in that region (see table) because the behavior is associated with a higher risk of HIV infection. Data show that young women ages 15 to 24 in sub-Saharan Africa are three times more likely to be infected with HIV than young men the same age.1 It is clear that in much of Africa, young women bear the brunt of the AIDS epidemic.

Sadly, few large-scale interventions have been undertaken to combat this risky behavior, and even fewer have been evaluated to show how well they actually work. However, in Uganda, an important collaboration between the government, local organizations, and the U.S. Agency for International Development may be leading the way. According to the 2006 Demographic and Health Survey in Uganda, 7 percent of young women ages 15 to 19 reported that they had recently had high-risk sex with a partner 10 or more years older than themselves.2 The survey also reports that age-mixing in sexual relationships is more common among young women who do not know where to get a condom, those in rural areas, and those with only primary-level education.3 These factors often leave young women vulnerable to high-risk sexual behavior and HIV infection.

Cross-Generational Sex
Country, year of survey Percentage of sexually active women ages 15 to 17 with partner at least 10 years older in past year Percentage of sexually active women ages 18 to 19 with partner at least 10 years older in past year
Ghana, 2003 1.7 7.9
Nigeria, 2003 21.3 4.2
Malawi, 2004 0.9 2.4
Tanzania, 2004 4.9 7.8
Lesotho, 2004 7.5 7.0
Uganda, 2004–5 9.4 9.9

Source: Macro International Inc., country survey data.

The Y.E.A.H. Initiative

In 2004, a coalition of Ugandan organizations and Young People's Advisory Groups, under the auspices of the Uganda AIDS Commission HIV/AIDS Partnership, designed and implemented the Young Empowered and Healthy (Y.E.A.H.) Initiative. The purpose of the initiative was to address the growing need to improve health and social practices among young people in Uganda and answer the government's call for improved and coordinated behavior change communication efforts. Developed by and for young people ages 15 to 24, Y.E.A.H. is a communication campaign that combines mass media, person-to-person dialogue, and community media. The mission of Y.E.A.H. is to stimulate discussion and action among communities, families, schools, and health institutions; and, through the use of local and national media, to encourage positive practices. Its end goal is a reduction in the incidence of HIV and early pregnancy, and at the same time, an increase in the number of young people who complete primary education and beyond.
'Something for Something Love'

In 2005, Y.E.A.H. worked with young people and key individuals and groups in adolescent sexual and reproductive health throughout Uganda to determine the most useful focus of a communication campaign. Workshops explaining background research and campaign strategies determined that transactional sex poses a common and significant risk to youth in Uganda. Young people suggested calling these relationships "Something for Something Love," and Y.E.A.H. used the term as the main theme of its first campaign.

According to campaign organizers, young women are often pressured into compromising situations, such as having unwanted or unprotected sex. These relationships are usually problematic for young women and lead to consequences such as unplanned pregnancy, dropping out of school, abortion, and HIV/AIDS or other sexually transmitted infections. Violence is common in "Something for Something Love," especially if the young woman refuses sex or tries to end the relationship. For the older married partner, "Something for Something Love" often results in broken marriages or violence if the spouse learns about it.

A public education poster from the Young Empowered and Health Initiative (Y.E.A.H.). It reads: "Uncle Bob got a few moments of pleasure with a young girl and...his wife found out. Short term gain, long term loss."
Credit: Y.E.A.H. project and the Health Communication Partnership of Johns Hopkins University

Y.E.A.H. has made significant progress stimulating dialogue and action around "Something for Something Love," using its popular "Rock Point 256" radio drama series and reinforcing media materials and community outreach activities. Young people ages 15 to 24 were given three clear messages: abstain from sex until you are ready to settle down for a long-term relationship; set long-term goals that you do not compromise for material gain; and do not give or receive gifts or favors in exchange for sex. Hence, the campaign's catch phrase, "Short term gain, long term loss." Adults were also given a message: Examine your personal role in protecting young people.

Political and cultural leaders in Uganda, including the First Lady, have spoken out about the harmful effects of "Something for Something Love" on young people and their health. Media coverage of the issue has not only increased but also become more critical of the practice.

The association of cross-generational sex with unsafe behaviors and HIV risk makes the practice a priority for attention in Africa. While there is much work to be done, this program has successfully involved the community in its efforts. In one year, audiences sent in more than 900 letters with questions and comments about the radio dramas and related materials. Y.E.A.H. has obviously struck a resonant chord in Uganda—one that could possibly be replicated in other countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

Donna Clifton is communications specialist at the Population Reference Bureau.

References

UNAIDS, Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic (Geneva: UNAIDS, 2006).
The DHS HIV/AIDS Sero-Behavioural Survey for Uganda, 2004-2005, indicated that the prevalence for girls ages 15 to 17 was 9.4 percent and for ages 18 to 19 was 9.9 percent. No data is shown for the 2006 numbers on cross-generational sex, nor is it subdivided by age groups other than 15 to 19. There is no explanation of the decline in the 2006 DHS report.
Uganda Bureau of Statistics and Macro International Inc., Uganda Demographic and Health Survey 2006 (2007).

Cross-Generational Sex

2011-11-03T02:57:00.000-07:00

Cross-generational sex, defined as non-marital sexual relationships between young women and men who are ten or more years older, is common throughout Africa and puts young women at higher risk for violence, unintended pregnancies, HIV and other STI. Young women in these relationships have limited negotiating power with older men leading to inconsistent condom use.

Qualitative research conducted by PSI in Kenya helped reveal key motivations behind these relationships, including material or financial benefits for young women and sexual gratification for men. In addition, the risk-perception of HIV and STI in cross-generational relationships is low, because young women perceive that older men are faithful and men believe younger women are sexually inexperienced.

In Uganda, PSI developed a comprehensive program using multiple communication channels to reach not only older men and younger women, but also community leaders and parents whose ambivalence and inaction towards cross-generational sex allow the practice to continue. Evaluation of the program found that young women exposed to intervention activities were more likely to reject cross-generational sex; have increased self-confidence and ability to refuse sex with older men; and recognize the health risks associated with cross-generational relationships. PSI also has programs targeting cross-generational relationships in Botswana, Cameroon, Kenya Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, and Togo.

WHY DO PEOPLE LIE ABOUT THEIR AGE???

2011-11-03T02:53:00.000-07:00

Ask any woman how old she is, at first she does not say anything and when she does, she reduces it (never increases). Her age is the same every year!

One of the reasons why women do not tell their real age is probably they are scared of growing old [obviously]. Menopause is a function of age and the average woman gets scared when she approaches it. She tends to show people that she is not getting any nearer menopause. I do not really see why that happens. Some interviews I have read on the web suggest that the majority of women over 60 are still sexually active or still think about sex.

Another reason why some women lie about their real age, well they are afraid of aging
and plus every women likes to be told she looks younger for her age, when you actually
tell them they look older their age well it hurts them. Call any woman by the title of mama in Buganda, she will ask you whether she is the one who mothered you.

Men like women also lie about their ages.

This lady had this to say;
“I actually had a man lie to me about his age once. I was 20 at the time, and it just so happened he was 20 too. . .right! He even said it like a lie. I went on 1 more date with him and that was it. You see, I remembered why he seemed so familiar. It was because I knew his younger sister Anita (who was my age or slightly older) and she had pointed him out to me and was like "that is my older brother and I did not pay him any attention. And said "that is nice". So on the date I said "I remember you, you are Anita’s older brother" and since he had lied about his age he said "NO, she is my older sister". It was all too much. I could not wait for them to get their stories straight.

Guys lie of their ages to get the woman no matter worth. The women do the same to appear presentable to the man, who likes to be called the ugly or rejected? No one

I do not see any reason for a woman to lie about her age. It is better you keep quiet when you are asked than lie about it. I think women lie about their ages because they feel they have not accomplished what they ought to have accomplished at that age. Some men do not even know their wives real age because they were lied to. Some do not even know the woman they are married to is older than they are. Too bad! Women!

A woman that looks younger than her age is most likely not to lie about her age, because well, she still got it going on physically.

Anyway, they just want feel young, and not have you thinking about them as being old and not being able to "do it" any more.

When i was 24, I used to wish that i was older so I could do alot of stuff, Now am turning 27, I wish I were much younger. The thought of 27 kills me. Am single and not even sure where the present relationship is heading to. That is why I lie.

This lady had this to say aslo;
Well I lie most of the time about my age at the beginning (always young of course) and it never gave them(boys)any doubts because I look younger than my age but it works so, I always get them young or old it does not matter.

CAN U TRUST ANY PERSON WHO TELLS LIES ABOUT THEIR AGE ???.

Good reasons to stay in bed

2011-10-30T03:49:00.000-07:00

You might think it's your worst habit: groaning at the sound of your alarm clock, slamming the snooze button and sleeping in until you're running very, very late. But if you're tired enough to want to stay in bed all morning, your body might well be telling you to stay in bed – at least for a little while.

The snooze button can be an important part of healthy sleep management. Without proper sleep, you're more at risk of developing chronic health conditions like diabetes and heart disease.

Waking up tired is more likely to make you irritable, forgetful, depressed, accident-prone and, of course, sleepy. And even just one hour of sleep less than the recommended eight per night increases your chances of coming down with a cold.

So, as the clocks go back, here are three reasons to spend that extra hour in bed.
You've been missing precious sleep

When you don't get enough sleep too many nights in a row, you become increasingly tired. Don't let your sleep debt get out of hand – alleviate it in small intervals by sleeping an extra hour or less every day until you've caught up. The increments are important, as researchers have found that oversleeping by more than an hour can disrupt your body clock.
You're planning to skimp on sleep

If you know you'll be low on sleep during a busy period, pay it forward. A study has found that people who stocked up on sleep prior to a sleepless week were more alert than their more tired peers. Remember, the same rules apply here as in the post-deficit naps – don't add more than an hour of extra sleep onto your wake-up time each day.
You're sleeping less so you can exercise

Exercising in the morning is a sensible habit – as long as you don't go overboard. The days when you wake up dragging your feet and dreading the thought of going to the gym are usually days when you're tired or low on sleep, or days before you get sick, are actually the days you might want to skip your fitness routine.

Give yourself that extra hour in lieu of exercise so that you can get back on track with your rest. This will also ensure you won't have to skip more gym days later.

Finally, whatever your sleep habits or strategy, make sure that the hours you sleep are high quality.

Create a perfectly comfortable sleep environment, follow a bedtime routine and have a regular sleep schedule.

If you exercise, do so at least three hours before bedtime. Make sure to get some sunshine during the day. Avoid caffeine in the evening, and remember that a light snack late in the day can help you sleep.

Strawberries may protect stomach against alcohol

2011-10-30T03:46:00.000-07:00

Strawberries may help protect the stomach from some of the adverse effects of alcohol, a study has found.

European scientists found that strawberries can reduce the harm that alcohol causes to the stomach mucous membrane.

Gastritis, or inflammation of the stomach mucous membrane, is linked to alcohol consumption. It can also be caused by viral infections, by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as aspirin and by drugs used to treat ulcers caused by the bacterium Helicobacter pylori.

In the study, published in the journal PLoS ONE, the scientists gave strawberry extract to rats - 40 mg per day per kilo of weight - for 10 days, before giving them alcohol.

The researchers found fewer ulcerations in the stomachs of the rats given the strawberry extract.

Study co-author Sara Tulipani from the University of Barcelona said: "The positive effects of strawberries are not only linked to their antioxidant capacity and high content of phenolic compounds (anthocyans) but also to the fact that they activate the antioxidant defences and enzymes of the body."

The study findings suggest that a diet rich in strawberries can have a beneficial effect when it comes to preventing gastric illnesses, and may even help to slow down the formation of stomach ulcers in humans.

Maurizio Battino, who coordinated the research at the Marche Polytechnic University in Italy, said: "This study was not conceived as a way of mitigating the effects of getting drunk but rather as a way of discovering molecules in the stomach membrane that protect against the damaging effects of differing agents."

Warning signs of a stroke and mini-stroke

2011-10-30T03:45:00.000-07:00

A mini-stroke is a medical emergency and needs to be dealt with immediately, yet many of us have never heard of them.

Mini-strokes, or transient ischaemic attacks (TIA), are caused by a temporary interruption of the blood flow to the brain, depriving it of oxygen. Most TIAs are usually caused by a blood clot in one of the arteries supplying blood to the brain.

Symptoms of a TIA are the same as a full blown stroke, but the big difference is that they are temporary and only last for a short time, anything from a few minutes to a day.

A TIA is the major warning sign that a full blown stroke may be on the way. Around one in five people who have a TIA go on to have a major stroke within four weeks.

Yet too many people carry on as usual without getting the treatment urgently needed to prevent a future stroke. One study by Oxford University found that TIA patients were less likely to visit a doctor if their symptoms didn't last for long or if they occurred on a Friday, during the weekend or on holiday.

Each year around 65,000 people will have a TIA, according to a recent UK stroke audit. Stroke is the third biggest cause of death in the UK, after heart disease and cancer, and the leading cause of disability. A TIA should never be ignored, no matter how quickly you may recover from one.

If you had problems breathing and/or chest pain, you wouldn't think twice about dialling 999; you should react in the same way if you experience any of the symptoms of a TIA.
Stroke and mini-stroke warning signs (FAST signs)

* Face: facial weakness - can the person smile? Has their mouth or eye drooped?
* Arm: does it show weakness? - can the person raise both arms?
* Speech: problems - can the person speak clearly and understand what you say?
* Time: time to call 999

Other symptoms of a TIA or stroke include:

* Weakness, numbness, pins and needles on one side of the body - an arm, leg or face
* Blurred or disturbed vision in one or both eyes
* Sudden memory loss or confusion
* Slurred speech, or difficulty finding words

Evangelists perish in Jinja accident

2011-10-30T03:38:00.000-07:00

TWO American evangelists are among four people, who perished in a Thursday night accident along the Jinja-Iganga highway.

Dr. Reos Godzck, fellow citizen Leos Both and their hosts namely Bishop John Michael Mugerwa and Ronnie Ssebunya died after a trailer crashed their vehicle at Kakira at 7pm.

According to Jinja police spokesperson, Samsom Lubega, Paul, the driver of a Toyota Super Custom in which the deceased were, attempted to overtake two fuel tankers.

“As he overtook, he realized there was oncoming traffic so he decided to squeeze into a narrow gap between the two trailers,” Lubega stated.

Owing to humps on the road, the trailer in front reduced speed and Paul followed suit, Lubega said, adding that in the next few minutes, the trailer behind rammed into the Super Custom.

Godizic, Both, Mugerwa and Ssebunya died on the spot while Paul was rushed to hospital in Jinja. The police by Friday morning could not establish his state.

A fire brigade team from Jinja had to cut the wreckage to extract the bodies. The remains were taken to the city mortuary in Kampala.

From Phoenix, Arizona in US, the two Americans were here on the invitation of Mugerwa of Fast Assemblies Church located in Nkere zone, Katwe Makindye Division, Kampala.

Earlier in the day, they had attended a crusade for married couples in Namutumba district.

Saidi Nyogolo, the driver of the killer trailer disappeared but the police apprehended his colleague, Hamasi Kaizera. Kaizera disclosed that their vehicles contained jet fuel, which they were driving to Entebbe.

South Eastern traffic chief, Washington Labeja, who assessed the accident scene, attributed the crash to recklessness.

The vehicles were towed to Nalufenya police post traffic police continued investigating the tragedy continued. Accidents are among the leading causes of death in Uganda. Thousands of people perish in accidents annually.

The top 10 risk factors for stroke identified

2011-10-30T03:36:00.000-07:00

Ten factors have been identified which account for 90 per cent of the risk of having a stroke.

The deadly 10 are:

* high blood pressure
* smoking
* waist-to-hip ratio (abdominal obesity)
* diet
* physical activity
* lipids (fats)
* diabetes mellitus
* alcohol intake
* stress and depression
* heart disorders

Of these the first 5 factors accounted for 80% of the risk. This is important because all of them can be modified by lifestyle and behaviour choices.

A stroke is caused when the blood supply to the brain is disturbed, for instance by a blocked or burst blood vessel. It is one of the leading causes of adult death in the UK and the rest of the world.

The study looked at over 6,000 people in 22 countries over a period of three years. Half of the study participants were people who had suffered a stroke for the first time, the other half were a control group with no history of stroke. The control group was chosen to match with the stroke sufferers group by age and sex.

All participants completed a detailed questionnaire and underwent a physical examination, and most provided a blood and/or urine sample.

The 10 factors identified from the study accounted for 90% of the so-called "population attributable risk" (PAR) for all types of stroke.

All of the factors were also linked to the risk of a ischaemic stroke (caused by a blood clot blocking a blood vessel in the brain), whereas high blood pressure, smoking, waist-to-hip ratio, diet, and alcohol intake were significant risk factors for intracerebral haemorrhagic stroke (bleeding into the brain tissue).

When analysed individually, high blood pressure was the most important factor for stroke, since it was associated with one-third of the risk of all stroke. Smokers were at double the risk of stroke compared with non-smokers, and smoking was associated with one in five strokes

This study, called the INTERSTROKE study, is run by scientists from McMaster University in Canada. They also run a related study, the INTERHEART study, which looks at the causes of heart attack. This has found that 9 of the 10 factors in the INTERSTROKE study are the same as in the INTERHEART study.

The results are published by the Lancet in print and online, and is presented at The World Congress of Cardiology, Beijing by Dr Martin J O’Donnell and Dr Salim Yusuf.

Mini-stroke signs

2011-10-30T03:33:00.000-07:00

Muammar Gaddafi

2011-10-26T08:53:00.000-07:00

In power since 1969, the colonel has been one of the longest-serving, most erratic, most grimly fascinating leaders.

Libya's Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has been Africa's and the Arab world's longest-ruling, most erratic, most grimly fascinating leader - presiding for 42 years over this desert republic with vast oil reserves and just 6 million people.

For years, he was an international pariah blamed for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jumbo jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people. After years of denial, Libya acknowledged responsibility, agreed to pay up to $10 million to relatives of each victim, and Gaddafi declared he would dismantle all weapons of mass destruction.
That eased him back into the international community.

In February, one week into the uprising, Gaddafi vowed to die as a "martyr" on Libyan soil
But in February, days after the uprising against him began, Gaddafi gave a televised speech amid violent social unrest against his autocratic rule. In the speech, he vowed to hunt down protesters "inch by inch, room by room, home by home, alleyway by alleyway."
The speech caused a furor that fuelled the armed rebellion against him and it has been since mocked in songs and spoofs across the Arab world.
Gaddafi came to power in 1969 after leading a bloodless coup toppling King Idris at the age of 27. He maintained tight control of his oil-rich country for decades by clamping down on dissidents.
He was born in 1942 in the coastal area of Sirte to parents who were nomads. He went to Benghazi University to study geography but dropped out to join the army.
After seizing power, he laid out a pan-Arab, anti-imperialist philosophy, blended with aspects of Islam. While he permitted private control over small companies, the government controlled the larger ones.
He was an admirer of the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser and his Arab socialist and nationalist ideology.
He tried without success to merge Libya, Egypt and Syria into a federation. A similar attempt to join Libya and Tunisia ended in acrimony.
Crushing dissident
In 1977 he changed the country's name to the Great Socialist Popular Libyan Arab Jamahiriyah (State of the Masses) and allowed people to air their views at people's congresses.
However, critics dismissed his leadership as a military dictatorship, accusing him of repressing civil society and ruthlessly crushing dissident.
The regime has imprisoned hundreds of people for violating the law and sentenced some to death, according to Human Rights Watch.

At the UN General Assembly in 2009, Gaddafi accused the body of being a terrorism group like al-Qaeda [EPA]
"Gaddafi, gradually as he took power, he used force and he used brutality," Mohammed al-Abdalla, the deputy secretary-general of the National front for Salvation of Libya, told Al Jazeera.
"In the 1970s against students, when he publicly hung students who were marching, demonstrating, demanding rights in Benghazi and in Tripoli and many other squares, and his opposition members abroad in the 1980s, including here in London and other places in Europe and in in Arab Middle East.
"He executed, in probably the most brutal massacre that we saw, 1,200 prisoners in the Abu Salim prison who were unarmed, They were already in jail, he executed them in less than three hours."
Gaddafi played a prominent role in organising Arab opposition to the 1978 Camp David peace agreement between Egypt and Israel.
Later shunned by a number of Arab states on the basis of his extreme views on how to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict among others, Gaddafi's foreign policy shifted from an Arab focus to an African focus.
His vision of a United States of Africa resulted in the foundation of the African Union.
Lockerbie bombing
Among his many eccentricities, Gaddafi is known to sleep in a Bedouin tent guarded by dozens of female bodyguards on trips abroad.
In the West, Gaddafi is strongly associated with "terrorism", accused of supporting armed groups including FARC in Colombia and the IRA in Northern Ireland.
Libya’s alleged involvement in the 1986 bombing of a Berlin nightclub in which two American soldiers were killed prompted US air attacks on Tripoli and Benghazi, killing 35 Libyans, including Gaddafi’s adopted daughter. Ronald Reagan, the then US president, called him a "mad dog".
The 1988 bombing of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie in Scotland is possibly the most well known and controversial international incident in which Gaddafi has been involved.
For many years, Gaddafi denied involvement, resulting in UN sanctions and Libya’s status as a pariah state. Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence agent, was convicted for planting the bomb. Gaddafi's regime formally accepted responsibility for the attack in 2003 and paid compensation to the families of those who died.
Also in 2003, Gaddafi broke Libya's isolation from the West by relinquishing his entire inventory of weapons of mass destruction.
In September 2004, George Bush, the US president at the time, formally ended a US trade embargo as a result of Gaddafi's scrapping of the arms programme and taking responsibility for Lockerbie.
The normalisation of relations with Western powers has allowed the Libyan economy to grow and the oil industry in particular has benefited.
However, Gaddafi and Lockerbie came back into the spotlight in 2009, when al-Megrahi was released and returned to Libya. The hero’s welcome al-Megrahi received from Gaddafi on his return was condemned by the the US and the UK, among others.
In September 2009, Gaddafi visited the US for the first time for his first appearance at the UN General Assembly.
His speech was supposed to be 15 minutes, but exceeded an hour and a half. He tore up a copy of the UN charter, accused the Security Council of being a terrorist body similar to al-Qaeda, and demanded $ 7.7 trillion in compensation to be paid to Africa by its past colonial rulers.
During a visit to Italy in August 2010, Gaddafi's invitation to hundreds of young women to convert to Islam overshadowed the two-day trip, which was intended to cement the growing ties between Tripoli and Rome.
Libyan uprising
Inspired by revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, Libyans began to hold peaceful protests against his regime in February of this year.
Demonstrations were met with military force and the uprising escalated into a civil war, with NATO-led forces later siding with the rebels.
On June 27, the brutal actions of the government were referred to the International Criminal Court and an arrest warrant for Gaddafi was issued for crimes against humanity.
Gaddafi repeatedly blamed the unrest on al-Qaeda and a "colonialist plot". He called those opposed to him "rats", and alleged that they had been influenced by "hallucinogenic drugs".
The war raged on for months, with slow gains for the opposition. Eventually, the rebels entered Tripoli on August 21.

Mammar Gaddafi died of wounds suffered on Thursday 20Th 2011 as fighters battling to complete an eight-month-old uprising against his rule overran his hometown Sirte
His killing, which came swiftly after his capture near Sirte, is the most dramatic single development in the Arab Spring revolts that have unseated rulers in Egypt and Tunisia and threatened the grip on power of the leaders of Syria and Yemen.
"He (Gaddafi) was also hit in his head," National Transitional Council official Abdel Majid Mlegta told Reuters. "There was a lot of firing against his group and he died."
Mlegta told Reuters earlier that Gaddafi, who was in his late 60s, was captured and wounded in both legs at dawn on Thursday as he tried to flee in a convoy which NATO warplanes attacked. He said he had been taken away by an ambulance.
An anti-Gaddafi fighter said Gaddafi had been found hiding in a hole in the ground and had said "Don't shoot, don't shoot" to the men who grabbed him but his pleas fell on dead ears. He was finally finished by a young fighter aged 22 years.

White-collar crimes vs Blue collar crimes

2011-10-26T08:50:00.000-07:00

Within the field of criminology, white-collar crime has been defined by Edwin Sutherland as "a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation" (1939). Sutherland was a proponent of Symbolic Interactionism, and believed that criminal behavior was learned from interpersonal interaction with others. White-collar crime, therefore, overlaps with corporate crime because the opportunity for fraud, bribery, insider trading, embezzlement, computer crime, copyright infringement, money laundering, identity theft, and forgery are more available to white-collar employees.
•
Historical background
The term white-collar crime only dates back to 1939. Professor Edwin Hardin Sutherland was the first to coin the term, and hypothesize white-collar criminals attributed different characteristics and motives than typical street criminals. Mr. Sutherland originally presented his theory in an address to the American Sociological Society in attempt to study two fields, crime and high society, which had no previous empirical correlation. He defined his idea as "crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation" (Sutherland, 1949). Many denote the invention of Sutherland's idiom to the explosion of U.S business in the years following the Great Depression. Sutherland noted that in his time, "less than two percent of the persons committed to prisons in a year belong to the upper-class." His goal was to prove a relation between money, social status, and likelihood of going to jail for a white-collar crime, compared to more visible, typical crimes. Although the percentage is a bit higher today, numbers[which?] still show a large majority of those in jail are poor, "blue-collar" criminals, despite efforts to crack down on white-collar, and corporate crime. The introduction of white-collar crime was a relatively new issue to criminology at that time. He was urging other criminologists to stop focusing on the socially and economically disadvantaged. The types of individuals who committed these crimes lived successfully and were respected by society in general-also criminologists; because these criminals were held to such a high regard, these individuals were given a blind eye to the crimes they committed.
Other fiscal laws were passed in the years prior to Sutherland's studies including antitrust laws in the 1920s, and social welfare laws in the 1930s. After the Depression, people went to great lengths to rebuild their financial security, and it is theorized this led many hard workers, who felt they were underpaid, to take advantage of their positions.
Much of Sutherland's work was to separate and define the differences in blue collar street crimes, such as arson, burglary, theft, assault, rape and vandalism, which are often blamed on psychological, associational, and structural factors. Instead, white-collar criminals are opportunists, who over time learn they can take advantage of their circumstances to accumulate financial gain. They are educated, intelligent, affluent, confident individuals, who were qualified enough to get a job which allows them the unmonitored access to often large sums of money. Many also use their intelligence to con their victims into believing and trusting in their credentials. Many do not start out as criminals, and in many cases never see themselves as such.[1]
Definitional issues
Modern criminology generally rejects a limitation of the term by reference, rather classifies the type of crime and the topic:
• By the type of offense, e.g. property crime, economic crime, and other corporate crimes like environmental and health and safety law violations. Some crime is only possible because of the identity of the offender, e.g. transnational money laundering requires the participation of senior officers employed in banks. But the Federal Bureau of Investigation has adopted the narrow approach, defining white-collar crime as "those illegal acts which are characterized by deceit, concealment, or violation of trust and which are not dependent upon the application or threat of physical force or violence" (1989, 3). This approach is relatively pervasive in the United States, the record-keeping does not adequately collect data on the socioeconomic status of offenders which, in turn, makes research and policy evaluation problematic. While the true extent and cost of white-collar crime are unknown, it is estimated to cost the United States somewhere between $300–$660 billion annually, according to the FBI (Lane and Wall 2006, cited; in Friedrichs, 2007, p46).
• By the type of offender, e.g. by social class or high socioeconomic status, the occupation of positions of trust or profession, or academic qualification, researching the motivations for criminal behavior, e.g. greed or fear of loss of face if economic difficulties become obvious. Shover and Wright (2000) point to the essential neutrality of a crime as enacted in a statute. It almost inevitably describes conduct in the abstract, not by reference to the character of the persons performing it. Thus, the only way that one crime differs from another is in the backgrounds and characteristics of its perpetrators. Most if not all white-collar offenders are distinguished by lives of privilege, much of it with origins in class inequality.
• By organizational culture rather than the offender or offense which overlaps with organized crime. Appelbaum and Chambliss (1997, 117) offer a twofold definition:
o Occupational crime which occurs when crimes are committed to promote personal interests, say, by altering records and overcharging, or by the cheating of clients by professionals.
o Organizational or corporate crime which occurs when corporate executives commit criminal acts to benefit their company by overcharging or price fixing, false advertising, etc.

Relationship to other types of crime
Blue-collar crime
The types of crime committed are a function of what is available to the potential offender. Thus, those employed in relatively unskilled environments and living in inner-city areas have fewer "situations" to exploit (see Clarke: 1997) than those who work in "situations" where large financial transactions occur and live in areas where there is relative prosperity. Blue-collar crime tends to be more obvious and thus attracts more active police attention (e.g. for crimes such as vandalism or shoplifting, where physical property is involved). In contrast, white-collar employees can incorporate legitimate and criminal behavior, thus making themselves less obvious when committing the crime. Therefore, blue-collar crime will more often use physical force, whereas in the corporate world, the identification of a victim is less obvious and the issue of reporting is complicated by a culture of commercial confidentiality to protect shareholder value. It is estimated that a great deal of white-collar crime is undetected or, if detected, it is not reported.
Corporate crime
Corporate crime deals with the corporation or the company as a whole. The crime benefitting the investors or the individuals who are in high positions in the company or corporation. The relationship white-collar crime has with corporate crime is that they are similar because they both are involved within the business world. Their difference is that white-collar crime benefits the individual involved, and corporate crime benefits the company or the corporation.
State-corporate crime
The negotiation of agreements between a state and a corporation will be at a relatively senior level on both sides, this is almost exclusively a white-collar "situation" which offers the opportunity for crime. White-collar crime has become a priority of law enforcement, however evidence shows that it continues to be a low priority.
When senior levels of a corporation engage in criminal activity using the company this is sometimes called control fraud

HERE I REPRODUCE THE DOSSIER THAT KIZZA BESIGYE AUTHORED IN 1999, A DOCUMENT THAT CHANGED NRM FACE FOR GOOD

2011-10-24T09:32:00.000-07:00

BY KIZZA BESIGYE

I have taken keen interest and participated in the political activities on the Ugandan scene since the late 1970s. This was during a period of intense jostling to topple and later succeed the Idi Amin regime. I am, therefore, fully aware of the euphoria, excitement and hope with which Ugandans received the Uganda National Liberation Front/Army (UNLF/A). Ugandans supported the UNLF’s stated approach of "politics of consensus" through the common front. It was hoped that the new approach to politics would be maintained and Uganda rebuilt from the ruins left by the Amin regime. Unfortunately, instead of nurturing the structures, and regulations which bound the front together, we witnessed a primitive power struggle that resulted in ripping the front apart to the chagrin of the population.

Some of us young people were immediately thrown into serious confusion. We had not belonged to any political party before, and we did not approve of the record and character of the existing parties – UPC and DP. Spontaneously, many people started talking of belonging to a Third Force. This force represented those persons who wished to make a fresh start at political organization, with unity and consensus politics as the centre pin. With a few months left to the 1980 elections, the Third Force crystallized into a new political organization– the Uganda Patriotic Movement (UPM). The population, to a large extent, expressed their appreciation of the ideas and opportunity presented by the young organization, but was pessimistic regarding its electoral success.

Pessimism was justified, because the new organisation simply had no time and resources to organize effectively nationally; and UPC was already positioning itself very loudly and arrogantly to rig the elections and seemed to have what was essential for them to do so successfully. After the sham 1980 elections, when Paulo Muwanga, a leader of UPC (and chairman of the Military Commission) took over all powers of the Electoral Commission and declared his own election results, there was widespread despondency and tension. While the "minority" DP Members of Parliament took up the opposition benches in Parliament, the rank and file of the party rapidly united behind the new forces of resistance to struggle against the dictatorial rule. The Popular Resistance Army (PRA and later, NRA) led by Yoweri Museveni which started with about 30 fighters, was overwhelmed by people seeking to join its ranks. The NRM was born as a political organization in June 1981.

It was created by a protocol that effected the merger of Uganda Freedom Fighters UFF (led by the late Prof Y.K. Lule and Museveni’s PRA). The armed wing of the organization became the National Resistance Army (NRA). The NRM political programme was initially based on seven points which were later increased to become the well-known Ten-Point Programme. The basic consideration in drawing up the programme was that it should form the basis of a broad national political and social force. A national coalition was considered to be of critical importance in establishing peace, security, and optimally moving the country forward. The political programme was, therefore, referred to as a minimum programme around which different political forces in Uganda could unite for rehabilitation and recovery of the country.

To achieve unity, it was envisaged that the minimum programme would be implemented by a broad-based government. After the bush war, discussions were undertaken with the various political forces to establish a broad-based government that would reflect a national consensus. The NRM set up a committee led by Eriya Kategeya (then chairman of the NRM Political and Diplomatic committee) for the purpose of engaging the various groups in these discussions. This exercise was, however, never taken to its logical conclusion. It would appear that once the leaders of the political parties were given "good" posts in the NRM government, their enthusiasm for the discussions waned, and the process eventually fizzled out. In spite of the lack of a proper modus operandi, the initial NRM government (executive branch) was impressively broad-based. Consensus politics conducted through elections based on individual merit and formation of broad-based government became the hallmark of the NRM.

Broad base undermined

However, the popular concept of the broad-based government, which had also received support of most political groups, was progressively undermined. It ought to be remembered that due to the support and cooperation of other political groups, no legal restrictions were imposed –on political parties until August 11, 1992 when the NRC made a resolution on political party activities in the interim period. In my opinion, there were three factors responsible for undermining and later destroying the NRM cardinal principle of broad-basedness, especially in appointment to the Executive: The NRM had set itself to serve for a period of four years as an interim government, then return power to the people. However, it was not very clear how this would happen at the end of the four years.

Some politicians in NRM government who came from other political parties set out to use their advantaged positions to, on the one hand, undermine the NRM and on the other, strengthen themselves in preparation for the post-NRM political period. Consequently, they fell out with the NRM leadership, and a number of them were arrested and charged with treason. Historical NRM politicians who thought that they were not "appropriately" placed in government, blamed this on the large number of the "non-NRM" people in high up places, and set out to campaign against the situation. They created a distinction between government leaders as "NRM", and "broad-based". If you were referred to as "broad-based", it was another way of saying that you were undeserving of your post, or that you were possibly an enemy agent ("5th Columnist").

After some years of NRM rule, some in the leadership began to feel that there was sufficient grassroots support for the NRM, such that one could "off-load" the "broad–based" elements in government at no political cost. These factors were at the centre of an unprincipled power-struggle which was mostly covert and hence could not be resolved democratically. It continued to play itself out outside the formal Movement organs, with the results of weakening and eventually losing the concept of consensus politics and broad-basedness. By the time of the Constituent Assembly elections were held in 1994, the NRM’s all encompassing, and broad-based concept remained only in name. For instance, while the CA electoral law clearly stated that candidates would stand on "individual merit", the NRM Secretariat set up special commercial committees at districts whose task was to recommend "NRM candidates" for support. Not only did the logistical and administrative machinery of NRM move against the candidates supporting or suspected to be favouring early return to multi-party politics, it even moved against liberal candidates advocating for the initial NRM broad–based concept.

That is why many people were surprised and confused when some senior NRM leaders declared that "we have won!" after the CA results were announced. Who had won? It was clear that there were two systems; one described in the law, and another being practised. Moreover, the conduct of the CA, again exhibited the contradictions between the principles of NRM (and the law), and the practice. I was quite alarmed when I read a document titled ‘Minutes Of A Meeting Between H.E The President with CA Group Held On 25.8.94 At Kisozi.’ The copy had been availed to me by my colleague Lt Col Serwanga Lwanga (RIP) who attended the meeting. Present at the meeting were recorded as: H.E. the President (Chair), Eriya Kategaya, Bidandi Ssali, Steven Chebrot, Agard Didi, George Kanyeihamba. Miria Matembe, Mathias Ngobi, Mr Sebalu, Lt Noble Mayombo, Jotham Tumwesigye, Aziz Kasujja, Beatrice Lagada, Faith Mwonda and Margaret Zziwa. The introduction of the meeting reads in part as follows: The National Political Commissar introduced this committee as a Constituent Assembly Movement Group which wants to agree on a common position.

　

The arbitrary hand-picked group went ahead to take positions on major areas of the draft constitution, which we members of CA, (considered as "NRM supporters"), were supposed to support in the CA. It is interesting to note that among the 16 hand-picked members of the group, only six were directly elected to represent constituencies in the CA. The others were presidential nominees and representatives of special interest groups. One member was not even a CA delegate. We strongly resisted this approach, and after intense pushing and shoving, this group was replaced by the "Movement caucus" under the chairmanship of the National Political Commissar, Kategaya.

Changing movement

The Movement caucus acted very much like an organ of a ruling party. All ministers (except Paul Ssemogerere who later resigned from government) were members. The hand-picked group, and the Movement caucus after it, both undermined the principles of the Movement and the law. The Constituent Assembly was negatively influenced by executive appointments. In the middle of the CA proceedings, a cabinet reshuffle saw Speciosa Kazibwe elevated to the vice presidency, Kintu Musoke to premier and several other delegates appointed to ministerial posts. Many others were appointed to be directors of parastatal companies. It is my opinion that after these actions, some CA delegates took positions believed to attract the favourable attention of the executive. Most CA delegates also intended to participate in the elections that would immediately follow the CA.

This had two negative effects:

Being aware of the previous role of the NRM Secretariat in elections, some CA delegates would be compromised to act in such a way as to win the support of the secretariat in the forthcoming elections. Some CA delegates saw themselves as the first beneficiaries of the government structure and arrangements that were being constitutionalised. So, they took positions which would favour them, and not the common good. As a result, the CA progressively became polarized, and its objectivity was diminished, especially when dealing with political systems. For example, at the commencement of the CA, every delegate made an opening statement highlighting major views on the draft constitution. Analysis of these statements shows that few delegates supported the immediate introduction of multiparty system while the majority supported the continuation of the "Movement system" for a transitional period of varying length.

The positions expressed were very much in line with the views gathered by the Constitutional Commission. The commission noted in its report (paragraph 0.46) that a consensus on the issue could not be attained. This was demonstrated by the statistical analysis of views gathered from RC 1 to RC V, plus individual and group memoranda. It will be seen that nationally, at RC 1, "Movement" supporters were 63.2% and this percentage decreased progressively as they went to higher RCs until RCV (District Councils) where Movement supporters were only 38.9% and multiparty supporters were 52.8%. Among the individual memoranda, 43.9% supported a multiparty system, while 42.1% supported Movement. Among the group memoranda, 45.1% supported multiparty, while 41.4% supported Movement. It is important to note that these views were gathered at a time when there was no impending election, and therefore, no campaigning.

Accordingly, the Constitutional Commission proposed the following, as the only limitation on political party activities (in Article 98 of Draft Constitution): "For the period when the Movement is in existence, political parties shall not endorse, sponsor, offer platform to or in anyway campaign for or against any candidate for public office." The CA under the influences outlined earlier ended up with restrictions contained in the highly contentious article 269 of the Constitution. The character of the Movement gradually changed, and the process of change was not determined democratically. Instead, it was continuously manipulated. Established Movement organs were continuously undetermined, and others completely ignored. For example, the National Executive Committee (NEC) of NRM was the organ supposed to be coordinating change in the NRM, yet NEC had not met for more than three years prior to the promulgation of the 1995 constitution – in spite of a requirement for it to meet at last once every three months. Instead, covert and arbitrarily constituted groups came in, like district election committees, special CA groups, Movement political High Command, Movement caucus, Maj Kakooza Mutale’s group, etc. The Movement created by the CA and completed by Parliament (through the Movement Act 1997) was different from the one of 1986-1995.

The Movement Act 1997 created a political organization with structures outside the governmental structure. For the first time, the Movement was a political organization distinct from government, the only remaining link being that it was funded by the government. Unfortunately, instead of describing the Movement as a political organization, the CA chose to call it a political system – distinct from "Multiparty Political System", and other systems that may be thought of later. This was, in my opinion, a grave error. We even ignored advice given to us through a letter by President Yoweri Museveni (chairman NRM and Commander in Chief NRA) to the CA-NRM caucus delegates, dated June 21, 1995. In the letter, the chairman says, "the NRM is not a state but a political organization that tries to welcome all Ugandans. It therefore cannot coerce all Ugandans to be loyal to it. Loyalty to NRM is voluntary."

　

The reality of the Movement today is that it is a political organization in much the same way as any political party is. Having no membership cards does not make it less so. In fact, in the letter referred to above, President Museveni further explains: "then some people may ask the question. If NRM could be already to compete for political office with opposing political forces in future, why not do it now? Do not support doing it now because it is not in the best [interest] of governance and fortunately now the people still agree with us. It is only when the majority of the people change that we have to adjust our position. It would be something imposed on us by circumstances." So the NRM/Movement system is a convenient and, for the time, popular means to political power.

Manipulation

The characteristics which made the NRM government popular, such as the broad- based strategy, principle of individual merit, and the 10-Point Programme have been seriously eroded. This is evidenced by the bitter antagonism and animosity which exists between Movement supporters in many parts of the country, e.g. Kabale, Ntungamo, Kasese and Iganga. After more than 13 years of NRM rule, armed rebellion rages on in northern Uganda, and has also become entrenched in the western part of the country. All in all, when I reflect on the Movement philosophy and governance, I can conclude that the Movement has been manipulated by those seeking to gain or retain political power, in the same way that political parties in Uganda were manipulated. Evidently, the results of this manipulation are also the same, to wit: Factionalism, loss of faith in the system, corruption, insecurity and abuse of human rights, economic distortions and eventually decline. So, whether it’s political parties or Movement, the real problem is dishonest, opportunistic and undemocratic leadership operating in a weak institutional framework and a weak civil society which cannot control them.

I have shown that over the years the "Movement System" has been defined in the law in a certain way, but the leaders have chosen to act in a difficult way. This is dishonest and opportunistic leadership. I have also shown how changes have been made to the Movement agenda, and other important decisions have been made outside the Movement structures. This too is undemocratic leadership. In my opinion, the way forward in developing a stable political situation is to do the following: Urgently revisit the legal framework with a view to making an equitable law and regulation for all political organizations. The Movement should be treated as a political organization. Implementing this would need amendments to the Constitution, including amendment of articles 69 and 74. This requires the approval of the people through a referendum and the forthcoming referendum could be used for this purpose. In any case, laws are a reflection of the political will, so if there is political will to correct a situation, finding a way is easy.

The primary guarantor of democracy, human rights and the rule of law must be the civil society. Its capacity should, therefore, be quickly developed. Focus on a programme that could quickly raise the standards of living of our people to a decent level. This is an essential antecedent for our society to build a viable democracy. Of course, the approach to raising the standards of living is highly debatable. I have personal views that I hope to share with the public at another time. I pray to the almighty God to guide us so that we do not tumble again.

　

KIZZA BESIGYE

　

IS THIS LIBERATION OR SAVAGENESS??

2011-10-22T05:52:00.000-07:00

Gaddafi and sons are gone, Saddam and sons went, Mobuttu and sons, faced the same situation, to mention but a few. Other leaders should be preparing themselves for the same wrath. But who is fooling who in all these incidents??? Do leaders deserve such kind of death?? Are the killers/hangmen so holy that they they mill not face a similar death? Who incites these young men to behave the way they do like killing people as if they are killing flies? Please assist and give me answers to these questions which are puzzling me. Thank you

Organizational justice and behavioural ethics: New perspectives on workplace fairness

2011-10-20T03:12:00.000-07:00

Guest Editors:
Jonathan Crawshaw (Aston Business School, Aston University, UK)
Russell Cropanzano (Eller College of Management, University of Arizona, US)
Chris Bell (Schulich School of Business, York University, Canada)
Thierry Nadisic (EMLYON Business School, France)

The deadline for submission is 31 January 2012 and submissions should not be submitted before Tuesday 03 January 2012.

Over the past half century or so, scholars of both organizational justice and behavioural ethics have provided essential insights into issues of workplace (un)fairness. At the heart of this research are concerns of employee wellbeing and happiness, and the continuing improvement of working lives, as well as the integrity and cohesiveness of the organization as a social entity. All of which, of course, eventually affects individual and organizational performance. To date, however, the justice and ethics literatures have largely run parallel to one another, very often responding to similar ethical, justice or moral concerns/dilemmas but from different perspectives and paradigms. Organizational justice has tended to study how managers and their organizations are judged as (un)fair by employees (e.g. through voice provision) and how this impacts the level of performance and wellbeing at work. On the other hand, behavioural ethics has been concerned with explaining individual behaviour that occurs in the context of larger social norms, such as lying, stealing, charitable giving, and whistle-blowing. The aim of this special issue is to begin to bridge the divide between the organizational justice and behavioural ethics literatures, encouraging future research that integrates the field and extends our theoretical understanding of these issues.

Examples of recent high profile cases of business corruption – including bribery, exploitation and the role of financial traders in the banking crisis; the controversies surrounding senior management pay and bonuses; and the continuing felt discrimination of minority employee groups (e.g. on grounds of race, gender, disability, sexuality) regardless of nearly a half century of legislation – have all made salient concerns of ethics, justice and morality to consumers, employees, employers and politicians across the globe. Given this context, we feel that the time is ripe for a special issue that aims to bring together research from these parallel disciplines so that new insights into workplace (un)fairness and (un)ethicality may be generated.

By recognising the shared concerns of, and concepts within, organizational justice and behavioural ethics research, scholars are challenged to explore, and borrow from, each other's field to more effectively respond to individual and societal concerns regarding workplace (un)fairness. Indeed, recent organizational justice research has taken tentative, yet encouraging, steps in this direction. For example, studies of fairness motivations and deontic justice have begun to explore the importance of morality (e.g. moral motivations, moral convictions, moral identity, ethical orientation) in the driving of individual justice behaviours and judgements. By opening up the organizational justice research agenda to these wider ethical models and concepts we begin to better understand how and why various actors within the employment relationship behave (un)fairly, justify their decisions and actions as fair, and react to the perceived (un)fairness of others.

This special issue invites papers that are at the forefront of contemporary research into organizational justice and/or behavioural ethics. Our hope is to develop new insights into the moral, ethical and justice challenges facing organizations. In particular, we encourage submissions that address the following research questions, although this is not meant to be an exhaustive list:

* What are the contextual antecedents of (un)just (e.g. discrimination, denial of voice) and (un)ethical (bribery, corruption, theft, whistleblowing) behaviour? For example, what is the role of HRM/people management policies and practices?
* How can collective justice concepts, such as systemic justice, entity justice or justice climate, help us to understand (un)ethical phenomena at work (e.g. multilevel research on ethical climates or culture of justice)?
* What is fair, just or ethical leadership? How can organizations promote, support and develop ethical/just leaders?
* What are the individual differences that may explain (un)just and (un)ethical behaviour – including themes of justice sensitivity, moral identity, ethical orientation, moral maturity and empathy? Work on individual differences should not simply be a search for moderators but should provide substantial insight and contribution through clearly articulated conceptual models. Individual differences could also consider the role of context and circumstances.
* How can theories of justice and behavioural ethics inform policies of environmental sustainability, corporate social responsibility and business ethics?
* What are the challenges of managing fairness cross-culturally – including questions of societal/cultural values and differences in what is perceived as (un)fair and peoples reactions to (un)fairness? What are the implications for multinationals and FDIs?
* When might morality and justice be incongruent – can moral decisions be unfair, or fair decisions be immoral?

We are particularly seeking submissions based on well designed empirical investigations of these issues, although strong conceptual work will also be considered. Empirical studies that utilise qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods are all welcomed, however, a clear emphasis on both theoretical and practical/policy implications must be evident. All submissions will be reviewed in light of their potential to stimulate future debate and discussion around the integration of organizational justice and behavioural ethics research.

Contributors should note:

* This call is open and competitive, and the submitted papers will be blind reviewed in the normal way.
* Submitted papers must be based on original material not under consideration by any other journal or outlet.
* For empirical papers based on data sets from which multiple papers have been generated, authors must provide the Guest Editors with copies of all other papers based on the same data.
* The editors will select a limited number of papers to be included in the special issue, but other papers submitted in this process may be considered for publication in regular issues of the journal.

The deadline for submission is 31 January 2012 and submissions should not be submitted before Tuesday 03 January 2012.

The special issue is intended for publication in the second half of 2013 or early 2014.

To be considered for this Special Issue, submissions must fit with the Aim and Scope of Human Relations as well as the call for papers.

Papers should be submitted online in accordance with our submission guidelines. Please indicate in your covering letter that the paper is intended for this special issue. Please direct any questions about the submission process, or any administrative matter, to Claire Castle, Managing Editor.

RELATIONSHIPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2011-10-20T03:09:00.000-07:00

Would your relationship be a sense of comfort and security for you if you knew your guy had that burning "forever" passion for you and wanted your relationship to last?

If you've tried to get the man in your life to feel this way by having heart-to-heart talks with him, or by telling him how much you need to know where things are going...

Then I need to ask you to do something important right now-

I need you to go find out the real reasons WHY a man will feel ready and excited about making your love last forever.

*HINT: One of the several reasons a man will truly commit is NOT because you finally convinced him that it was time because you've been dating for however long.

Men commit because of how they FEEL with you, not because of how much time has passed or that commitment should happen after a certain amount of time has passed.

If you're not clear about how to create that safe and loving place in your relationship where your guy will have ZERO DOUBTS about how great the rest of his life will be with you...

Then do yourself a favor and read this to find out the real reason why a man falls for you and commits:

http://www.CatchHimKeepHim.com/FCTC

Hey Herbert,

Have most of your single friends gotten engaged or married in the last few years? Which leaves you wondering...

When is it your time?

And how do you make sure your relationship grows deeper and moves forward?

I want to show you how commitment works when it comes to men, and how to jump past all the RESISTANCE and frustration other women run into and instead enjoy a solid relationship that grows more committed as the years go on.

>The Real Truth About Men & Commitment

Now, have you ever heard of a "commitment-phobe"?

If you're in a relationship and it's been a while but you have no idea where things are really headed now... then you may be dating one.

When a man is a commitment-phobe, he's feeling either 1 of 2 things:

1) He's doubting that he really wants to spend his life with you because he's not feeling that "forever feeling" with you right now.

Or...

2) He's unsure and afraid of the idea of "forever" and hasn't arrived in a place in his life where he's capable of making that level of decision about his future

Knowing this, let me ask you...

Have you ever seen a man who you thought would NEVER settle down and get married suddenly meet the right woman and fall deeply in love with her?

A few weeks or months earlier, this man might have been talking about how he loves his single life... and how he thinks he might never want to get married... or at least until he's much older.

And then the right woman came along and all that talk went out the window... as he seemed to be magically transformed into a loving, caring, loyal, committed man.

What happened?

Was he lying about wanting to stay single and not get married?

Or did something change?

The truth is that men can come up with TONS of reasons to NOT commit to a woman exclusively, and to not want to "settle down".

But all the many reasons and beliefs that they have can go out the window in a matter of enchanted moments with the right woman.

Here's the point...

Most men are "hard-wired" to feel like commitment would take something away from them.

But...

All it takes is 1 GOOD WOMAN to come along and change their entire BELIEF SYSTEM about what LOVE and COMMITMENT really means... and how it will affect their life.

The good news is that there are specific ways to tap into this side of a man to get him to open up and see how being in love and committed to you can make his life richer and more fulfilling than he could ever feel without you.

And you can do it without having to do any "tricks" or play any games.

In fact, you can get a man to feel and respond this way with you by being MORE HONEST. (I'll show you how in second)

But only if you know how to communicate with a man around the whole concept of COMMITMENT... and show him how it's completely in HIS best interest.

Are you ready for your man to be the one who comes to you with ideas about how your life together is going to be, and how your love will grow?

Or do you want to continue to experience the opposite where it feels like he might not even want your relationship much anymore?

In my "From Casual To Committed" program, you'll discover the easy steps to get him begging to be with you and only you forever.

You'll learn:

- How the Commitment Process actually works, and what each "Phase" of Commitment is all about

- A man's "Commitment Tempo" and know all about how timing fits into him wanting forever with you

- The most common reasons men WITHDRAW and put their feet on the brakes, and how to completely prevent this from ever happening again

- Exactly what to say when you're talking about Exclusivity, Quality Time, Monogamy and about your future together and Marriage

- And lots more.

Check out some free video clips from this program and learn some free tips HERE:

http://www.CatchHimKeepHim.com/FCTC

This amazing program will also give you a better understanding of what "commitment" really means to a man, why men like to "just date"... and how you can adjust his Commitment Timeline to yours so that you will ALWAYS know exactly what to say and do (and when) and feel in sync as your relationship grows closer.

(Hint: When you do this and you understand and tap into the power of a man's Commitment Timeline, he will think that moving towards commitment is HIS IDEA, and he'll happily go down that road with you and lead you as far as you want things to go.)

You can preview this program absolutely RISK FREE and try out some of the effective communication techniques inside that are guaranteed to help you build and grow your future with a man.

Don't wait for a man to figure things out and lead your relationship forward on his own.

And don't make the mistake of trying to do all the "heavy lifting" yourself to make things come together and work in your relationship.

If you leave things up to a man and his internal "wiring" that keeps him wanting to stay "casual" and keep his freedom... then things aren't going to move forward for you and grow more committed on any level any time soon.

If you really want to know how to turn a man who doesn't show much interest in growing closer and having a more physically or emotionally committed relationship... then you need to go and get this program right now.

It's here:

http://www.CatchHimKeepHim.com/FCTC

I'll talk to you again soon, and best of luck in Life and Love.

Your Friend,

Christian Carter

P.S. Don't have any regrets when it comes to love.

What if you were given a golden opportunity to make sure you have the best chances at finding love with a truly amazing, emotionally mature man?

And what if that opportunity couldn't be easier for you to take advantage of?

Well, that's what I'm offering you right now:

The chance to benefit from every program I've ever made - INSTANTLY and ONLINE.

No more waiting for your order in the mail...go here to start watching any of my programs completely RISK FREE:

http://www.CatchHimKeepHim.com/Catalog

P.P.S. Are you're looking for Mr. Right and not "Mr. Right Now"?

Are you ready to have a man who comes forward and steps up and is excited about creating your future together?

My "From Casual To Committed" program is the step- by-step guide to building a rock solid lasting relationship that your man commits himself deeply to, and stays with.

I want you to feel what having your man deeply committed both physically and emotionally feels like.

From Casual To Committed is here:

http://www.CatchHimKeepHim.com/FCTC

But if you haven't met that right man yet, let me ask you-

How many new men who are single and available do you actually meet in a given week? How about in a month?

Whether you know it now or not, hundreds of thousands of couples connect each month through online dating sites.

If you know how these work, and more importantly you know how to use them to your advantage to pick and attract just the "good ones" and screen the wrong guys out... then online dating is an incredible way to meet your Mr. Right.

All you have to do is take a few simple steps and you will have a handful of qualified men writing to ask you about yourself and telling you a bit about who they are?

Are you willing to at least see what this would be like?

If you're really ready to meet a great guy, then it's time you did things right.

My "Finding Love Online" program will show you how to setup each and every part of your online dating experience so it's not just a way that low-quality men bug you.

It will show you how to setup a very specific "filter" that will draw the right men to you and push the wrong ones aside. And it will do it automatically for you once you set it up.

Let me show you how.

You can read more about how to use online dating sites to have a small group of quality men asking for a chance to get to know you better, if you go here now:

http://www.CatchHimKeepHim.com/FindingLoveOnline

And if you're interested in knowing the answers to the TOP 10 MOST COMMON QUESTIONS I get from readers about men, love, relationships and dating, and maybe find the answer to YOUR most burning question while you're at it, check out this article right here:

http://www.CatchHimKeepHim.com/Catalog

Copyright 2011, Catch Him Inc., All Rights Reserved. Catch Him And Keep Him And Christian Carter are trademarks of Catch Him Inc. All emails sent to Christian Carter become the exclusive property of Catch Him Inc. By reading this, you agree to all of the following: You understand this to be an expression of opinions and not professional advice. It is only to be used for personal entertainment purposes. You are solely responsible for the use of any of the content and hold Catch Him Inc. and all members and affiliates harmless in any event or claim.

To ensure that you get my Dating Advice Newsletters each week, add me to your address book. Instructions are here: http://www.CatchHimAndKeepHim.com/Support/WhiteList/

If you are under 18 years old, please follow the link below to unsubscribe yourself, or you can send mail to Catch Him Inc., 3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy, 5th Floor, Las Vegas, NV 89169.

To safely REMOVE your name and email address from our newsletter mailing list go to: Unsubscribe Here

If you have a question about these newsletters or anything else related to Catch Him and Keep Him, chances are it has already been answered on my Frequently Asked Questions page. This is usually the quickest way to get the answers you need, so always check my FAQ's before sending us an email. Contact Us

Ecomog, the monitoring group of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has been hailed. Discuss the constraints and achievements of Ec

2011-10-13T02:46:00.001-07:00

INTRODUCTION
The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) is a non-standing military force consisting of land, sea and air components, that was set up by member states of the ECOWAS to deal with the security problem that followed the collapse of the formal state structure in the Republic of Liberia in 1990. The force successfully restored an atmosphere that permitted the reinstatement of a functional state structure in Liberia.
The success of the force despite numerous shortcomings and some failures has attracted international attention. But in order to understand the operations of ECOMOG, it is necessary to provide a bird’s eye view of the nature of the political states that created the force, the type of security threat that faces them collectively and individually, and the external interests at play in the West African subregion.
There have been various constraints facing Ecomog in its operations to bring peace in West Africa as presented here below,
Firstly, the members of the regional organization were themselves involved in complex political transitions, with most of their regimes under considerable challenge from their own civil societies.
Secondly, the war generated huge resource demands economic, military, political and diplomatic that these states were ill-equipped to fulfill, and which the international community was disinclined to deliver.
Thirdly, the structural and political crises that sustained these rebellions economic stress, state decay and delegitimisation, the dislocation of youth were present among other states in the region. There was thus a real danger that the conflict would spread beyond the borders of Liberia and Sierra Leone.
Further more, in the course of their operations, ECOMOG troops have repeatedly encountered the constraint of civilian refugees fleeing towards their positions. In most cases, the forward units with whom they come in contact do not have the necessary food and medicine to take care of the large number of refugees. They are consequently forced to share their operational rations and medicines with civilians. Efforts to get relief agencies to take over the management of these refugees have always proven difficult. Relief agencies do not want to go to the frontline and ECOMOG usually lacks the transport facilities to move such large numbers of civilians to sites that are acceptable to relief agencies. In addition, relief agencies are reluctant to hand over their food and medicines to ECOMOG to administer to the refugees. This problem has been persistent and a solution has not yet been found by ECOMOG high command.
More still the geographic terrain of most parts of West Africa favours insurgency warfare and guerrilla operations. Experience in Liberia and Sierra Leone has proved that helicopters are crucial to operations in these areas. Unfortunately, West African armed forces have very few helicopters for combat and support operations. Hence this constraint hampered Ecomog operations.
Since member states of ECOWAS have limited capacity to manufacture military ordinance and equipment, it will remain difficult to standardise equipment, arms and ammunition. A possible solution is for member states to earmark specific units of their armed forces for ECOMOG service. Such units could be equipped with similar equipment, arms and ammunition. The training standards, doctrine and staff procedure of these ECOMOG earmarked units could be harmonised by an ECOMOG standing command staff whose headquarters would have to be designated and manned permanently.
However, these innovations would require more political will than what is currently in existence among member states.
The economy of most member states is poor, hence they rely on non-regional states to sponsor their contingents for ECOMOG operations. The level of political will in such sponsor states determines the extent of logistic support that will be provided to the units they are sponsoring. Sometimes, these sponsor states change their policy or experience budget problems which have a direct impact on the continued stay of contingents they are sponsoring in the mission area and/or their operational effectiveness thus posing a constraint to ECOMOG operations.
Nigeria remains the only member state of ECOWAS that has the capacity for heavy military air and sea lift. The country is thus in a position to support its troops effectively, but other member states often lack such capability. This is sometimes responsible for their reluctance to contribute troops for ECOMOG operations.

Finally there was a constraint of cynical disregard which was apparent among the states involved, on the one side, in the way in which certain Francophone states connived in the attack on Liberia and deliberately frustrated peace initiatives and, on the other side, in the way in which the intervening states (Nigeria in particular) acted unilaterally and resisted control by the regional political directorate. And as has been shown, the operation was bedeviled by linguistic and geopolitical rivalries, and undermined by questions about its legitimacy and format.

Despite the above constraints, ECOMOG operation was ultimately successful for several reasons as here below presented;
The first was the sheer political will and tenacity of ECOWAS. The organisation did not have the option of cutting and running, for reasons that were as much self-interested as humanitarian.
The second was the ability to combine three phases of conflict resolution: peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peace enforcement, thereby changing mandates of forces in the field as developments on the ground required (a flexibility due, ironically, to the autonomy enjoyed by the military command and as a result of the weak control exercised by the ECOWAS directorate). In addition, the subregional, regional, and international initiatives each brought different strengths and weaknesses to the peace process.
One of the more notable achievements of ECOMOG, in the long term, is its success in pushing the region from argument to consensus and from division to unity on matters of regional security. Prior to the Liberian crisis, as well as throughout the early stages of the intervention, ECOWAS members displayed little commitment to the ideals of regional security embodied in the 1981 treaty.
In December 1997, the Fourth Extraordinary Summit of the ECOWAS Heads of State and Government held in Lomé directly confronted these issues, approving the establishment of a regional mechanism for conflict prevention, management and resolution, and regional security. Following this, a meeting of experts in Banjul in July 1998 drafted a set of proposals for such a Mechanism for the approval of the ECOWAS Heads of State meeting in Ouagadougou in October. These proposals recognised that "... though the organization [ECOWAS] was established for the primary purpose of economic integration of the region, economic development can only be effectively pursued in a secure and stable environment", thus getting around the ‘constitutional’ issue that had earlier generated such heat.
These prescriptions are the result of a growing consensus within the region and between the various factions in ECOWAS that conflict is self-defeating. As a result, states in the region were able to demonstrate considerable flexibility, redefining their positions in order to promote consensus regarding the nature of regional security mechanisms. For the region, the conflicts in Liberia and Sierra Leone have been a traumatic experience, conferring both a sense of its vulnerability as well as its ‘regionness’. After years of myopic focus on national sovereignty and security, West African states now see the connection between domestic anarchy and regional political instability much more clearly. States are ready to concede that ‘my neighbour’s business is my business’ and, correspondingly, accepting the necessity of acting collaboratively within a regional framework to tackle these problems rather than attempting to seek favoured status and arrangements with external powers.
Notwithstanding this consensus, which helped to facilitate an end to the Liberian crisis, the ECOMOG experience teaches the important lesson that one should not conflate regional security and human security.
CONCLUSION
ECOMOG has created awareness among West African leaders, intellectuals and military experts that the force is a positive security development that requires some fine-tuning. Given the growing number of conflicts on the African continent, ECOMOG is a reminder of the fact that the right tool for conflict resolution can be found from within the continent, if African countries are prepared to pool their resources. ECOMOG is therefore a lesson which should not be forgotten, because it also points to the fact that there is no need to wait for outsiders to help if Africa itself can address its problems effectively.

References
1. Comfort Ero, ‘ECOWAS and the Sub-regional Peacekeeping in Liberia’, in The
Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, first posted on the web on 25 September 1995.
2. MA Vogt, ‘The OAU and Conflict Management in Africa, paper presented at the
International Resource Group Conference, Mombasa, Kenya, November 1996.
3. ibid
4. Emmanuel Kwesi Aning, ‘ECOWAS Evolving Conflict Management System’
5. ET Dowyaro, ‘ECOMOG Operations in West Africa: Principles and Praxis’,
published in Monograph No.44: Boundaries of Peace Support Operations, February 2000.
6. ECOWAS Peace Operations from 1990 to 2004: Synopsis of Lessons Noted and
Key Recommendations, A background paper for the ECOWAS ‘Lessons Learned’’
Workshop, held at Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre, Accra, from
10-11 February 2005.
7. Emmanuel Kwesi Aning, op cit.

The just war theory has both Religious and Secular proponents. Discuss the background and main sources of just war theory.

2011-10-13T02:44:00.002-07:00

INTRODUCTION
War is an armed conflict between belligerent states, nations, or other parties whose aim is to enforce the political will of the victor upon the defeated belligerent.
A war usually is an attempt to alter the political balance of power of either the psychological or the material hierarchy of domination against equality, between and among the belligerents. Ideologically, one of the belligerents usually perceives an imperative political requirement to strategically dominate the other belligerent state, nation, or party
One of the perennial realities of human existence is war. From the earliest recorded events of human history all the way through to modern times, human communities have engaged in armed conflict as a method of dispute resolution. While war has been a constant part of the human experience, there has also been a tendency within virtually all human civilizations to limit the extent of war and the methods by which warfare may be conducted. In Western civilization, this limitation on warfare has taken shape as an effort to limit both the determination of when war is appropriate and the means used in battle.
Within the Western moral, legal, and political arena, the connected questions of when war is appropriate and what means are acceptable in warfare has been the subject of a great deal of examination. The basic theory which has arisen within Western culture to evaluate the legitimacy of military action is called just war theory.(4) The just war theory has received widespread acceptance both within Western culture and in the international community as a means by which a war may be determined to be justified or not.(5) Just war theory, which has both religious and secular proponents, is perhaps the most universally recognized moral theory by which the use of force may be evaluated.
The concept of justification for war under certain conditions goes back at least to Cicero. However its importance is connected to Christian medieval theory beginning from Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. The first work dedicated specifically to it was De bellis justis of Stanisław of Skarbimierz, who justified war of the Kingdom of Poland with Teutonic Knights. Francisco de Vitoria criticized the conquest of America by the Kingdom of Spain. With Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius just war theory was replaced by international law theory, codified as a set of rules, which today still encompass the points commonly debated, with some modifications. The importance of the theory of just war faded with revival of classical republicanism beginning with works of Thomas Hobbes.
The Just War theory is an authoritative Catholic Church teaching confirmed by the United States Catholic Bishops in their pastoral letter, The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response, issued in 1983. More recently, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 2309, lists four strict conditions for "legitimate defense by military force":
• The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• There must be serious prospects of success;
• The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power as well as the precision of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
While Nicholas Adams claims such views have a long tradition, critics claim the application of Just War is only relativistic, and directly contradicts more universal philosophical traditions such as the Ethic of reciprocity.[citation needed]
Just War theorists combine both a moral abhorrence towards war with a readiness to accept that war may sometimes be necessary. The criteria of the just war tradition act as an aid to determining whether resorting to arms is morally permissible. Just War theories are attempts "to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable uses of organized armed forces"; they attempt "to conceive of how the use of arms might be restrained, made more humane, and ultimately directed towards the aim of establishing lasting peace and justice.
The Just War tradition addresses the morality of the use of force in two parts: when it is right to resort to armed force (the concern of jus ad bellum) and what is acceptable in using such force (the concern of jus in bello). In more recent years, a third category — jus post bellum — has been added, which governs the justice of war termination and peace agreements, as well as the prosecution of war criminals.
Anarcho-capitalist scholar Murray Rothbard stated, "a just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination. A war is unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people, or try to retain an already existing coercive rule over them.
BACKGROUND ON JUST WAR THEORY
Just war theory has a varied and diverse background. The just war tradition includes the contributions of philosophers and theologians dating back to Roman times. As James Tuner Johnson has pointed out,
Just war is an historical tradition formed by experience and reflection, including much that is neither specifically theological (or even religious), nor philosophical. It has been strongly influenced by international law, the traditions of chivalry, and soldierly practices derived from the experience of many battles.
Just war theory as a method of evaluating military actions has been recognized historically by thinkers as varied as Cicero, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Grotius, and Daniel Webster. It is a theory which has been used by Christians and non-Christians alike to determine whether or not the decision to go to war and the means used to prosecute that war are just. It is crucial to keep this varied and complex pedigree of the just war tradition in mind when dealing with just war theory, otherwise it becomes possible to restrict the "breadth and diversity of the tradition," which could in turn lead to a serious misapplication of the theory in a particular circumstance. Understanding, then, that the theory of just war is one in which many sources mingle over the course of centuries, it is helpful to make a brief overview of those sources before delving into the main task of explaining and applying just war theory to the particular problem raised in this article, namely, whether the recent use of force by the United States against Iraq is justified under the theory.

MAIN SOURCES OF JUST WAR THEORY
The Religious Sources of Just War Theory
Many of the key thinkers who have expounded on just war theory through the centuries have identified themselves with the Christian faith, both in its Catholic and Protestant varieties. Just war theory has also gained a general acceptance among Christian theologians, philosophers, and jurists as a method of passing judgment on the morality or immorality of a particular conflict. The general Christian conception of just war theory forms the core of secular just war theory and as such has had a tremendous influence on the secular conception of the just war.
Early Christian approaches to war were largely pacifistic in nature, due to a focus in the early Church to the notion that Christians were distinct from the rest of society. However, with the growing Christianization of the Roman Empire, and the increasing political and social influence of the Christian Church, Christian theologians during the fourth and fifth centuries began to develop justifications for the use of force which would eventually take shape over time as just war theory.
The first major Christian theologian to address himself to the task of determining the circumstances under which war is legitimate was St. Augustine of Hippo. Augustine held that "[t]he natural order, which is suited to the peace of moral things, requires that the authority and deliberation for undertaking war be under the control of a leader." For Augustine, war is a permissible part of the life of a nation, and the power of prosecuting a war was part of the natural powers of a monarch, ordained to uphold peace.(15) War, far from being something which Christians should shun, is part of the life of a nation, ordained by natural law, a law which according to the New Testament is ordained by God.
Augustine's conception of the just war did not create a carte blanche for bloodshed.(17) In formulating his ideas on war, St. Augustine was careful to state the purposes for which war may be fought, and the procedural means which must be satisfied in order for a war to be just. "For it makes a great difference," he wrote, "by which causes and under which authorities men undertake the wars that must be waged." For Augustine, for a war to be just, it must be fought for the right reasons, and it must be waged under rightful authority.
Augustine held that the only reason which justified war was the desire for peace. "Peace is not sought in order to provide war, but war is waged in order to attain peace. Augustine criticizes other motives for war, such as "the desire for harming, the cruelty of revenge, the restless and implacable mind, the savageness of revolting, the lust for dominating, and similar things,"(21) and refers to them as things which are "justly blamed in wars."(22) In fighting a war, the goal must be to do that which is necessary to obtain peace; let necessity slay the warring foe, not your will. Augustine also includes under the subject of necessity the just treatment of prisoners and conquered peoples, making it clear that mercy should be shown to the vanquished, particularly if they are no longer a threat to peace.
Besides right intention, St. Augustine also held that it was necessary for a war to be waged under lawful authority. The purpose of the war-making powers of the state is to ensure peace, which in turn helps to foster the common-good of those in society. Augustine recognized that it was necessary for the authority and decision to undertake war to be made by a recognized leader. In addition, the soldiers who serve under the leader must serve the peace and common-good of society. Warfare which is declared by unlawful authority therefore fails to meet this criteria, as does warfare which is not directed toward peace and the common good.
The second major Christian thinker to deal with the issue of war is St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Aquinas based himself upon St. Augustine's view of war, elaborating on the teachings of the bishop of Hippo. In explicating his theory regarding the justness of a war, Aquinas focused on defining the right to make war and the importance of the intent which stands behind the decision to go to war In his attempt to formulate a simple rule which would give guidance on these issues, Aquinas argued that a war is justified when three basic, necessary conditions were met:
1. The war was prosecuted by a lawful authority with the power to wage war;
2. The war was undertaken with just cause;
3. The war was undertaken with the right intention, that is, to achieve some good or to avoid some evil. Together with St. Augustine, Aquinas' views on the justification of war form the basic core of just war theory, and it is from their concepts that the theory of just war is adapted and expanded by later thinkers.
Secular Sources of Just War Theory
The secular sources for just war theory span a considerable length of time. They include such philosophers as the ancient Roman Cicero and the Dutch Protestant Hugo Grotius. In addition, modern decrees on justifiable warfare, such as the commission to the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, and the United Nations Charter also act to flush out the modern conception of just war theory.
Cicero, the great Roman orator, jurist, and philosopher was one of the first to deal with the questions of justifiable war. Cicero held that the use of force was justifiable only when the war was declared by an appropriate governmental authority acting within specific limits. For Cicero, the ability to wage war rested with the state, and the state alone, and could be lawfully waged only "after an official demand for satisfaction has been submitted or warning has been given and a formal declaration made." In addition, Cicero also proposed the existence of a universal norm for human behavior which transcended the laws of individual nations and governed their relations with each other Cicero's belief in this universal norm was grounded in his view that there was a humani generis societas, a "society of mankind rather than of states." This view of a universal standard of behavior for nation-states which exists outside of promulgated law would have a profound impact on later just war theorists, particularly on Hugo Grotius.
Grotius was a 16th century Dutch Protestant who is sometimes referred to as the father of international law. Grotius, who lived in the aftermath of the brutal Thirty-Years War in Europe, wrote extensively on the right of nations to use force in self-defense in his book Jure Belli ac Pacis ("On the Rights of War and Peace"), which was published in 1625.It was largely Grotius who secularized just war theory, making the theory more acceptable for the age of the Enlightenment. For Grotius, a war is just if three basic criteria were met:
1) The danger faced by the nation is immediate;
2) the force used is necessary to adequately defend the nation's interests;
3) The use of force is proportionate to the threatened danger.
Grotius grounded his agreement with Cicero's notion of the need for a declaration of war in the natural law, and also argued that the purpose of just war theory is to provide "succor and protection for the sick and wounded in war, combatants and civilians alike. A result of this view is the notion that just war theory exists externally of any recognized legal system, that it is a part of the "law of nations" which is followed by all civilized nations. For Grotius, it is not necessary to prove just war theory by consulting with any of the established laws of the nations of Europe, or their customs. Rather, those laws are known through the universal medium of the natural law, a law which transcends nations and their own particular legal codes, a law which is binding on all human societies in their interactions with each other.(
After Grotius, just war theory underwent relatively few modifications until the nineteenth century. During the first century of it's existence, the United States' government came to acknowledge the legitimacy of just war theory. In 1842, the U.S. Secretary of State, Daniel Webster, acknowledged the legitimacy of the customary norms employed by Grotius to define the just war. This recognition occurred as a result of attempts to resolve the so-called "Caroline Incident."
The Caroline Incident occurred when the British attempted to prevent supplies from reaching Canadian rebels. In their attempts to restrict the flow of material to the rebels, the British burned the U.S. ship Caroline and killed several U.S. citizens. When the United States protested, the British government responded that its actions were justified as a matter of self-defense.(51) Webster responded by stating that the only way for the British claim to self-defense to stand was if it met the traditional elements of just self-defense.(52) Webster outlined those elements as consisting of necessity of self-defense, and the reasonable and not excessive use of force.(53) In essence, this definition of just self-defense mirrors that proposed by Grotius.
During the remainder of the 19th and early 20th centuries, just war theory underwent modest development. There were treaties, such as the Hague Conventions, which codified just war theory, but there was little major development in just war theory. That changed with the end of the Second World War. As a result of World War II, two basic documents were issued which resulted in increased recognition of just war theory in the international arena. The first document is the charter for the Nuremberg war crimes trials, and the second is the United Nations Charter. The Nuremberg Charter encapsulated the reigning notion of just war theory as represented by both St. Thomas Aquinas and Grotius. The Nuremberg Tribunal established that just war theory, as Grotius understood it, is universally binding customary law.
The United Nations Charter also has contributed to just war theory by recognizing the inherent right of each sovereign nation to self-defense.(56) Article 51 of the U.N. Charter affirms the right of each nation to self-defense, until the Security Council can take action in order to restore and stabilize international peace and security.(57) Article 51 states two key points in regard to international relations and the rightful use of force in international disputes:
1) The regulation of the use of force;
2) Collective security.
The U.N. Charter effectively outlaws the use of military force as a method of resolving international conflicts between nation-states. At the same time, the charter recognizes the inherent right of each nation to defend itself from an attack from an exterior foe which is by its very nature unlawful. This right of a nation to engage in defensive military actions has also been upheld by the International Court of Justice in its ruling in the case of Nicaragua v. United States of America. In that case, Nicaragua brought action against the United States for its support of insurgency forces attempting to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.(62) The International Court of Justice in its ruling held that the right of a nation to engage in self-defense, as customarily understood, was incorporated into Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.(63) As the Court stated, "[i]n the language of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, the inherent right (or droit naturel) which a State possesses in the event of an armed attack, covers both collective and individual self-defense."

GENERALLY RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLES OF JUST WAR THEORY
As the proceeding section has demonstrated, just war theory, despite its diverse sources and historical development, has several commonly recognized elements. These elements are traditionally divided into two basic categories which deal with the two basic fundamental issues regarding the legitimacy of war. The first issue, sometimes referred to in Latin as the jus ad bellum (literally, "that which is right or just to engage in resort to war", concerns when it is appropriate to resort to war as a method of conflict resolution. The second issue, jus in bello (literally, "that which is right or just within war" deals with what methods of warfare are permissible within the context of a war which meets the criteria of the jus ad bellum. Since this article is interested only in evaluating the validity of the decision made by the U.S. government to launch air strikes against Iraq, it will limit its discussion on just war theory to the jus ad bellum.
The core elements of the jus ad bellum consist of those principles which were originally recognized by the medieval commentators on just war theory as being most central to the whole doctrine of just war. As elucidated by St. Thomas Aquinas, the core principles consist of the following three elements:
1) Just cause;
2) Competent authority;
3) Right intention.
Just cause is classically understood to refer to self-defense. The use of military force is justified when it is used to repel an unjust aggressor and to retake that which the unjust aggressor has taken. It is generally acknowledged that a nation may use force to protect a neighboring state from attack from an outside hostile power. Thus, defense of self, or defense of another, are legitimate reasons for a nation-state to resort to military force.
The second element of jus ad bellum is that the war must be declared by competent authority. As recognized by theorists like Cicero and Aquinas, for a war to be just, the decision to go to war must be lawfully made. If an illegal or non-legal authority within an nation made the decision to go to war, such a decision would be unjust, for it would violate the basic principles of how a given society is governed.
Finally, the war must be fought with right intention, meaning that the motives for the war must not be to inflict undue suffering on the enemy state; the defending nation must use only that amount of force which is necessary for it to achieve its just cause. The motives of those engaged in making the decision to go to war must not be tinged with vengeance or a desire for retribution. Rather, the decision to go to war must be essentially protective; the goal of war is to obtain a just and durable peace. Such a peace is unlikely if the war is waged out of hateful or vengeful motives, with a desire not solely for self-protection but the total destruction of the enemy.(80) If in it's actions, the defending state's use of force exceeds what is necessary for the success of its just cause, the defending state's right intention is problematic. Seen this way, right intention serves to reinforce the requirement that the state which seeks to justly use force be acting in a truly defensive capacity, rather than engaging in military adventurism on the pretext of self-defense.

Conclusion
I can say that a just war has its principles which are inherent and obvious. However, their interpretation can vary a lot, as some of them are vague or subjective, leading to perhaps very different views on the justification of the war. Still, these integral things must take place in order for the war to be justified. The war has to be fought out of a good and just intention, only as a last resort, having a reasonable change of success and being proportional to the attack or aggression that predated it, and declared and notified to the proper parties.

While there could be some disagreement in terms of how to interpret these, the main logic and pillars of this are well understood and accepted, and remain the principles of a just war today as it has for many years.
Otherwise, the Just war theory is an attempt to think morally about war. The theorists who have recognized and shaped just war theory throughout Western civilization have included both secular and religious writers, including some of the greatest names of Western philosophy and legal theory. Just war theory has been recognized and used widely in the 20th century in an attempt to limit the horrors of war, and has been incorporated into international law through the United Nations Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, and the decision of the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua case. Generally construed, just war theory consists of two basic categories: jus ad bellum and jus in bello. This article examined U.S. decision to use force under the jus ad bellum requirements of just war theory. Those requirements are:
1) Just cause;
2) Competent authority;
3) Right intention. The U.S.'s recent military action against Iraq fails to meet the necessary requirements of the jus ad bellum. For this reason, the American air strikes against Iraq in September, 1996 were unjust.

REFERENCES
Benson, R. (2006):. The Just War Theory: A Traditional Catholic Moral View, The Tidings

Brough, Michael W., John W. Lango, Harry van der Linden, eds(2007): Rethinking the Just War Tradition Albany, NY: SUNY Press..

Dr Mark Evans/(2005): Just War Theory: A Reappraisal (Edinburgh University Press,

Fotion, Nicholas. (2007). War and Ethics (London, New York: Continuum

O'Donovan, O.(2003): The Just War Revisited (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Steinhoff, Uwe(2007):. On the Ethics of War and Terrorism (Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Walzer, Michael(1977): Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, 4th ed., (New York: Basic Books.

Walzer, Michael(2004). Arguing about War, (London: Yale University Press
v. Starck, Christian (Hrsg.): Kann es heute noch gerechte Kriege geben?, Wallstein-Verlag 2008
• Butler, Paul (2002-2003). By Any Means Necessary: Using Violence and Subversion to Change Unjust Law. 50. UCLA L. Rev.. pp. 721

The spread of conflicts in Africa poses a threat to global security. Discuss the fundamental root causes of conflicts on the African continent.

2011-10-13T02:44:00.001-07:00

INTRODUCTION
A conflict refers to a state of disharmony between incompatible or antithetical persons, ideas, or interests and may mean a clash. It can also mean a disagreement through which the parties involved perceive a threat to their needs, interests or concerns.
Africa today is a battlefield in many countries. On many occasions there are killings, burning, destroying, looting of property and corruption in many countries across the continent. Africa is yet to find a lasting solution to the conflicts in Sudan and the eastern part of the DRC. In Somalia a fratricidal/brother war has made the country ungovernable despite the presence of some African Union peacekeepers. The conflict in Madagascar, the Delta Region of Nigeria and Guinea still poses a problem. Kenya and Zimbabwe have managed to solve a post-election conflict but the underlying root causes need addressing. In Uganda the peace agreement between the government and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) led by Joseph Kony is not yet signed, and Joseph Kony and his commanders continue to commit atrocities outside Uganda in the areas of Central Africa Republic and DRC.
Despite other hot spots for war, Africa consistently remains among the top places for ongoing conflicts, consisting of both long standing civil wars as already highlighted in Somalia and conflicts between countries of Ethiopia and Eritrea's border wars after the latter's independence from the former.
The causes of African conflicts are very diverse and complex. There are many theories about the root causes of conflicts in Africa which include but not limited to historical, psychological, anthropological, sociological, demographical rationalist, economic, Marxist and political science theories.
However, there are a number of common root causes of conflicts throughout the continent as highlighted below;
First of all in conditions of lack of democracy, and respect for human rights, lack of transparency, lack of proper checks and balances, lack of good governance the stakes become increasingly high. And when, as is the case of some countries, political parties are usually regionally or ethnically based, this kind of ethnicity exacerbates conflicts in society. As ethnicity is politicized, groups begin to believe that they have to capture state power, democratically or undemocratically, to survive not as a nation but as a group. This in turn causes bloody conflicts within such countries or societies.
Secondly, poverty has been identified as the fundamental cause of conflict on the African continent. In this context, poverty refers to the lack of basic human needs faced by certain segments of African societies. Without taking major steps against poverty, hunger and deprivation, conflicts in Africa will be difficult to deal with.
Also the issue of the legacy of European colonialism had a lot of impact on conflicts on the continent. The artificial borders created by the colonialists left many ethnic groupings in Africa and this has remained a major root cause of conflicts in Africa.
Further more unequal international trade/comparative advantage has done more bad than good to minimize conflicts in Africa. This is simply because Africa cannot compete favourably with developed nations in the international trade because of hostile IMF/World bank policies like structural adjustment programs (SAPs) which have left more conflicts than solutions on the African continent. For example cutting back on health, education and manpower retrenchment in government organizations cannot go without causing conflicts in African communities.
Another element fuelling conflicts is the struggle for natural resources. Natural resources have played a key role in the conflicts that have plagued a number of African countries over the last decade, both motivating and fuelling armed conflicts. Revenues from the exploitation of natural resources are not only used for sustaining armies but also for personal enrichment and building political support. As a result, they can become obstacles to peace as leaders of armed groups involved in exploitation are unwilling to give up control over these resources. Even when conflict gives way to a fragile peace, control over natural resources and their revenues often stays in the hands of a small elite group and is not used for broader development of the country.

In addition, we should remember the Cold War period where the activities of the super-powers in the name of democracy, "anti-communism" and "socialist revolutions" fuelled many of Africa's conflicts and under development. Africa was sacrificed on the altar of the cold war. At the end of the cold war "democratic anti-communist" or "socialist" states were simply deserted. Without the external political, military and economical support some African states could not sustain the undemocratic, neo-colonial system, and their political hold on economic and political power. This historical setting has remained another major source of conflicts in some African countries.
Africa’s conflicts are also compounded by the fact that "war is profitable". People, who are making money out of war, have a financial interest to ensure that conflicts continue. But such phenomena are not unique to Africa alone as other continents face the same situations world over.
However the above situation can change if Africans observe the following;
First all conflict prevention and resolution and people centered development therefore demands a striving for good governance, inter alia, respect for human rights and rule of law, promotion of transparency and accountability in government and enhancing of administrative and institutional capacity.

Also as Africa today is freed from the shackles of Cold War, it is not dangerous to proclaim that economic, social and cultural rights, that is the right to sustainable development that benefits the people, the right to life, the right to work, education and health is as important as political and civil rights. This will considerably reduce conflicts on the continent.
As despots and dictators flourish in an environment of abject poverty, a sad reality for the vast majority of Africans. Africa leaders and people therefore should tackle the issue of poverty if we want to ensure that democracy, good governance and the rule of law are not only achieved but sustained. Hence conflicts minimized.
The time is long past when anyone could claim ignorance about what was happening in Africa, or what was needed to achieve peace. The time is also past when the responsibilities for producing change could be shifted on to peoples’ shoulders. It is a responsibility African people must all face hence solve the problem of conflicts.
African leaders need to ensure that there are systems which take into account African specifics so that, while being truly democratic and protecting human rights, they are nevertheless designed in ways which really ensure that peaceful means can be used to address the competing interests of different social groups in each country. Hence conflicts tackled.
Conflicts on the African continent could be minimized by establishing the institutions and procedures which would enable the continent to collectively deal with questions of democracy, peace and stability for the good of the continent.
African people have been empowered with skills to embrace means of facilitating a peaceful and mutual benefiting co-existence of communities to minimize conflict situations.

Finally Africans should develop new visions on the future of Africa where people will experience peace and stability, development, integration, common ideals, values and interests to achieve peace on the continent.
CONCLUSION
Although this presentation has focused on the causes of conflict within African countries, much of the analysis is relevant to the international situations.
Poverty, political, social and economic inequalities between groups predispose to conflict; policies to tackle them will reduce this risk as seen above.
It is believed that eight out of ten of the world's poorest countries are suffering, or have recently suffered, from large scale violent conflicts. Wars in developing countries have heavy human, economic, and social costs and are a major cause of poverty and underdevelopment hence violent conflicts.

REFERENCES
Adedeji (ed), 1999: Comprehending and mastering African Conflicts: The Search for Sustainable Peace and Good Governance, Zed Books.
Gurr TR(1993): Minorities at risk: a global view of ethnopolitical conflicts. Washington DC: Institute of Peace Press.
Ranger T (1993): The invention of tradition in colonial Africa. In: Hobsbawm E, Ranger T, eds. The invention of tradition. Cambridge: Cant
Stewart F, Fitzgerald V eds(2001): War and underdevelopment: the economic and social consequences of conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Turton D(1997): War and ethnicity: global connections and local violence in north east Africa and former Yugoslavia. Oxford Dev Stud.
United Nations, 2000: Mainstreaming a Gender Perspective in Multi-dimensional Peace Operations. Lessons Learned Unit, Department of Peacekeeping Operations, New York.
UN Resolution 1325, 2000.
UN Commission on Human Security, 2003: Human Security No

Critically discuss the meaning and major characteristics of position bargaining

2011-10-13T02:41:00.000-07:00

INTRODUCTION
Positional bargaining is a negotiation strategy that involves holding on to a fixed idea, or position, of what you want and arguing for it and it alone, regardless of any underlying interests. The classic example of positional bargaining is the haggling that takes place between proprietor and customer over the price of an item.
The customer has a maximum amount she/he will pay and the proprietor will only sell something over a certain minimum amount. Each side starts with an extreme position, which in this case is a monetary value, and proceeds from there to negotiate and make concessions. Eventually a compromise may be reached. For example, a man offers a vendor at the Shoprite 100,000= for an item he has for sale. The vendor asks for 300,000= so the customer offers 150,000=. The merchant then says he will accept 250,000= but the customer says the highest he will go is 200,000=. The vendor agrees that 200,000= is acceptable and the sale is made at 200,000=. So the customer pays100, 000= more than he originally wanted and the vendor receives 100,000= less.
Positional bargaining tends to be the first strategy people adopt when entering a negotiation. This is often problematic, because as the negotiation advances, the negotiators become more and more committed to their positions, continually restating and defending them. A strong commitment to defending a position usually leads to a lack of attention to both parties' underlying interests. Therefore, any agreement that is reached will probably reflect a mechanical splitting of the difference between final positions rather than a solution carefully crafted to meet the legitimate interests of the parties.
Therefore, positional bargaining is often considered a less constructive and less efficient strategy for negotiation than negotiation. Positional bargaining is less likely to result in a win-win outcome and may also result in bad feelings between the parties, possibly arising out of the adversarial, "you vs. me" approach or simply a result of one side not being truly satisfied with their end of the outcome. Positional bargaining is inefficient in terms of the number of decisions that must be made. The example above demonstrates the back-and-forth nature of positional bargaining. The more extreme the opening positions are, the longer it will take to reach a compromise.
Despite criticism of positional bargaining, supporters of this negotiation strategy do exist as it has been argued that consideration of all underlying interests in a negotiation process is unnecessary. In fact it may sometimes be counterproductive. This is because of the distinction and relationship between issues and interests.
Issues are universal, they are shared between each party in a conflict. Interests, on the other hand, are specific to each party: what the buyer of the item in the market wants is a bargain, what the seller wants is profit. This relationship is quite simple.
The problem arises when the issue at hand stirs up dramatically opposing interests between the parties, a situation in which it would be very difficult to bring them into agreement. If this is the case, it may sometimes be better to negotiate in terms of positions and go for a compromise. For example, two nations are in a dispute over water rights.
However, they also differ on many other issues, including trade, immigration, religion, and politics. Broadening the debate to include these underlying interests will only polarize the sides further. In this case it may be much easier to reach agreement if the two sides focus on the smaller issue of water, and set aside their other concerns. This involves negotiating in terms of positions. This may help the sides reach a compromise without creating any larger, interest-based conflicts. So, for issues that involve extremely conflicting underlying interests, it may be best to just focus on positions and aim for compromise.
There are various characteristics of positional bargaining hereunder are some major ones;
First of all the initial large demand is high or large opening position used to educate other parties about what is desired or to identify how far they will have to move to reach an acceptable settlement range.

Secondly is the characteristic of low level of disclosure where secretive and non-trusting behavior to hide what the settlement range and bottom line are. The main goal here is to increase benefits at expense of other.

Further more is the characteristic of bluffing as the strategy used to make negotiator grant concessions based on misinformation about the desires, strengths or costs of another.

Another related characteristic is that of threats as a strategy used to increase costs to another if agreement is not reached.

Also the characteristic of incremental concessions surfaces where small benefits are awarded so as to gradually cause convergence between negotiators' positions.

Finally is the characteristic of hard on people and problem where often the other negotiator is degraded in the process of hard bargaining over substance. This is a common behavior that is not necessarily a quality of or desirable behavior in positional bargaining.

Criticism of positional bargaining
The positional approach to negotiation, in which the process is viewed as a zero-sum game, does greater damage to the positional bargainer than other parties. A positional bargainer has locked himself/herself into position, moving out of that position will most likely yield a loss of face. Even worse, moving away from a position may well diminish the credibility of the positional bargainer so substantially that her/his reputation suffers.
Positional bargainers, by taking that approach, are making it clear that they do not intend to 'play fair' in their negotiations with others. People who feel they have been dealt with unfairly are going to be reluctant to enter into agreements or, if they must do so, they will be on the lookout for opportunities to breach unfairly-reached agreements they have felt forced to make. Since successful negotiation is a process by which people reach agreements each party is ready, willing, and able to fulfill, when there is an unfair process yielding an agreement a party is neither ready, nor willing and perhaps not able to fulfill, that is a failed negotiation.
The long term consequences of using a positional approach include greater difficulty in finding people willing to negotiate with you, a reputation for narrowness and closed-mindedness, and thus great difficulty establishing and maintaining the reciprocity which is fundamental to rewarding human relationships.
Finally, positional bargaining only works in the short term and during times of crisis. Hard positional bargaining beyond the system´s perceived crisis timeframe damages relationships and infrastructure internally and externally. Organizations and systems seek democratic collaborative ideals where participants expect participation regardless of policy or rules that are in place. In time, the executive loses credibility and strains relationships through unilateral negotiation. No matter how reasonable the solution may be, time wears away systemic and organizational buy in when partners are denied participation.
Within these economic and politically uncertain times, this may offer an important lesson to be remembered by the "fix it" manager. You can put your nose to the grindstone for a while and yes, positional bargaining can work but only within a set time frame. If you hold your nose to the grindstone for too long, it is going to rub off. Remember in an increasingly collaborative society, what you do is important, but over the long term it is how you have done it that matters.

CONCLUSION

The positional approach to negotiation, in which the process is viewed as a zero-sum game, does greater damage to the positional bargainer than other parties. A positional bargainer has locked himself/herself into position, moving out of that position will most likely yield a loss of face. Even worse, moving away from a position may well diminish the credibility of the positional bargainer so substantially that her/his reputation suffers.
Positional bargainers, by taking that approach, are making it clear that they do not intend to 'play fair' in their negotiations with others. People who feel they have been dealt with unfairly are going to be reluctant to enter into agreements or, if they must do so, they will be on the lookout for opportunities to breach unfairly-reached agreements they've felt forced to make. Since successful negotiation is a process by which people reach agreements each party is ready, willing, and able to fulfill, when there is an unfair process yielding an agreement a party is neither ready, nor willing and perhaps not able to fulfill, that is a failed negotiation.
The long term consequences of using a positional approach include greater difficulty in finding people willing to negotiate with you, a reputation for narrowness and closed-mindedness, and thus great difficulty establishing and maintaining the reciprocity which is fundamental to rewarding human relationships.

REFERENCES
Creighton, J, Jerome Delli, P, (1998): Public Involvement and Dispute Resolution – Volume 1: IWR Research Report.
Langton, S. (1996): An Organizational Assessment of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in regard to Public Involvement Practices and Challenges, US Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, IWR Working Paper 96-ADR-WP-9, 1996.
Moore, C, W.(1986): The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict, Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Susskind, L, McKearnan, S.(1999): The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement, Sage Publications.
www.orionconsult.co.in/positional-bargaining.html(22/07/2011)

With specific reference to Somalia, discuss the challenges facing conflict resolution.

2011-10-13T02:40:00.000-07:00

INRODUCTION
Conflict resolution in this context refers to efforts to prevent or mitigate violence resulting from intergroup or interstate conflict as well as efforts to reduce underlying disagreements Here I look at the challenges faced by those who are seeking to mitigate violence within the context of complex humanitarian emergencies. These emergencies arise from violence inflicted by one group against another within the confines of a state, from the capture of state institutions by one group, or by the collapse of these institutions and the failure of governance.

The land claimed by the Somalis stretch from the current rump of Somalia to the breakaway republic of Somaliland, Djibouti, into the North Province of Kenya, and the Ogaden across the Ethiopian border.
There are large pockets of ethnically distinct population groups especially among the sedentary, agricultural peoples, some of whom claim to pre-date the Somali migrations, others of Bantu origin followed in later and often forced migrations. These are often affiliated to, if not incorporated into, the clan system, and though racially divergent form part of Somali culture.
Somalia’s political history is therefore determined by the conflicting dynamics of charismatic leadership and non-conformist individualism. Political leaders can build alliances and attract followings on the strength of shared culture, language, and ancestry, but they have to adopt the awkward means of modern statehood to institutionalize their authority. This often backfires, driving people away from the modernizing project to seek refuge and support in their regional or sub-clan identities. As individual charisma exuded by leaders such as Siad Barre and Hassan Farah Aideed fade away, the inspired assertion of power has to be replaced by routine administration.
This can only function as long as followers are rewarded, and in as poor an economy as Somalia’s the need for a surplus distributed by the patrimonial state made the external connection to an outside power always very important. When this prop was knocked away under the regime in the 1980s the only recourse left was redistribution of internal resources, which inevitably means expropriation and displacement. In the late 1980s it spelled civil war.
The categorical subordination of traditional forms of organization, such as the huurt (the meeting of clan elders) was completed in the 1880s when Somali lands were divided among Britain, Italy, France and Ethiopia. Arbitrary border delineation, a dilemma across the African continent, was especially restrictive for nomadic herders, dependent upon free movement towards pasture and water holes. Thus colonialism resulted in the shift of power towards the urban areas, the centres of administration, production and consumption, and broke up formerly extensive clan territories through the imposition of borders. The push factor of regulatory intervention, including the closure of migration routes and the expropriation of clan lands, was accompanied by the pull of opportunities and development benefits prospects of in the cities, especially the ports of Mogadishu, Kismayo and Berbera. In spite of this significant change in livelihoods, many of the forms of association and the fissiparous organization into clans continued. People strengthened their ties with their clans and families, even though they had increasing contact with other Somalis.
There are several challenges facing conflict resolution in Somalia as here under presented;
First and foremost is the challenge of colonialism which introduced the Somalis to modern warfare, including Africa’s first experience of aerial bombardment. Armed resistance to British rule in north-eastern Somaliland under the leadership of Mohammed Abdulle Hassan lasted until the 1920s. In the Italian colony of Somalia, meanwhile, soldiers were recruited to participate in the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, and fought on both sides in the Second World War. With the de facto unification of all Somali territories under British rule in 1942 peace was established, but the transfer of power from the allies to the UN was a prologue to the far more extensive UN involvement in the early 1990s. This has remained a challenge to peace up to date.
It should also be remembered that Somalia refused to sign the OAU charter accepting the validity of colonial borders and embarked upon a policy of national expansion. The rumble of gunfire could be heard as early as 1964, with clashes along the Ethiopian border, and a shifta (bandit) war in northern Kenya, the civilian government coalition led by prime minister Abdirazaqu Haji Husseyn pulled back from the brink of warfare. Following the military coup of 1969, however, a very different regime took the reins of power. General Siad Barre first consolidated his authority at home by replacing multi-party democracy with the single Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party (SRSP), dressed in the ideological garb of the left. The state, however, moved centre stage as the engine of modernization and development and the focus of social organization. It also secured support from the Soviet Union, mainly in the form of military aid, which in turn satisfied the army, extended the power of Barre’s clan, and allowed him to entertain dreams of regional expansion. This kind of arrangement has since remained a challenge to peace in Somalia.
The challenge to Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) of engagement where civilians are deliberately targeted is made far more difficult by the repeated unwillingness or incapacity of the major powers to act through the UN Security Council, regional organizations, or through other appropriate instruments, to provide security first for endangered civilians and then for NGO personnel who are in the field offering protection. Somalia was the exception at one stage of its emergency, but so negative were the experiences of the UN and particularly the U.S. “military humanitarian” missions in Somalia, and so limited the strategic goals in comparison to the apparent costs, that Somalia set a “Mogadishu line” of active engagement that the U.S. and other Western forces were thereafter unwilling to cross in the African context.
Almost everywhere else the nongovernmental sector has found itself working in a political/ security vacuum created by a decline of interest on the part of the major powers. It is the absence of an adequate security envelope, I argue, that creates many of the observed negative externalities of assistance and relief and creates unprecedented challenges for conflict resolution.

Also levels of support far less demanding than military engagement to provide security for beleaguered populations are dropping. The substantial increase in what the humanitarian community calls the “internally displaced” is telling; it reflects an increasing inability of populations in distress to seek asylum across borders and become officially recognized “refugees” with access to the political and humanitarian rights of refugees.1The growth in the numbers of internally displaced persons reflects the growing tendency for the international community to disengage politically and economically from these conflicts, to attempt to contain their effects, and to ensure that the costs are “internalized” in the affected communities. This strategy of containment gives relief priority over protection of the basic rights of displaced populations. Containment also constrains and limits available strategies of conflict resolution.
Drawing on the experience of humanitarian intervention in complex emergencies in Africa in the past several years, critics have concluded that the relief effort can jeopardize conflict resolution and, at worst, prolong and even fuel war and conflict through the diversion of assistance. They identify several interrelated ways in which the unintended consequences of humanitarian assistance can impede conflict resolution.

The evidence is strong, though not determining, that in recent complex humanitarian emergencies the assistance that NGOs have provided to endangered populations has at times become the fuel for continued and renewed warfare. In Somalia, for example, food was extraordinarily scarce as a result of drought and civil conflict and, consequently, its absolute value rose to unprecedented levels. Its high price, in the context of economic collapse, mass unemployment, and a dramatic drop in family income, increased the relative value of food. Therefore, food brought into Somalia through the relief effort was plundered by merchants, by organized gangs of young men profiteering from the black market, and by militia leaders who used the wealth that the food brought to buy weapons and the loyalty of followers. In Rwanda and Sierra Leone, as well as Somalia and Sudan, assistance has been “taxed” or stolen to fuel processes of conflict escalation rather than promote conflict resolution
Conflict over grazing and watering rights had been part of Somali life since time immemorial. The contraction of the state’s patrimonial capacity resulting from reduced aid-flows was compounded by adverse developments in the private sector. Migration to the Gulf, known in Somalia as the ‘muscle drain’, and the livestock trade, had become the principal forms of economic activity and been instrumental in financing canters of political power outside the control of government.
With no external regulation, nomadic pastoralists were left to their own devices to manage their herds and negotiate the allocation of the limited natural resources vital to livestock raising: water, pasture and migration routes. This has remained a challenge to conflict resolution in Somalia for along time.
Once integrated into the money economy, albeit on unequal terms, Somali herders became capitalists whose economic outlook was determined by the maximization of short-term profit. This shift in herd management patterns resulted in the rapid deterioration of rangelands and the increasing competition over a dwindling natural resource base. Fighting between two factions, the SSDF and the USC, for example, originated in clashes between Majerteen and Hawiye pastoralists over watering rights in the Mudug region of central Somalia in 1988. Yet, for the private sector, livestock exports had become an indispensable source of foreign exchange. The precipitous decline in livestock trade in the early 1980s, caused by Australian competition and a Saudi import ban, had devastating effects upon herders, traders and the entire port economy, which had grown around it. The fall in earnings was catastrophic, from $123m in 1982 to $47m in 1984. Though many herders recovered by redirecting their trade to Kenya and Ethiopia the national economy sustained a severe shock during a period of gathering political crisis. This has remained a threat to conflict resolution till today.

After the fall of Said Barre, the unity of the opposition fragmented into factions as the removal of the common enemy dissolved the bonds of co-operation. An attempt by the Djibouti government to set up the USC commander Ali Mahdi as the leader of a provisional government was rejected by his archival Aideed and competition degenerated into violent conflict between former allies throughout Mogadishu. In the fighting between the two warlords Aideed, head of the Somali National Alliance (SNA) and Ali Mahdi of the USC, from November 1991 to February 1992 an estimated 14,000 lives were lost. The formation of these factions has remained a challenge to conflict resolution up to today.
The breakdown in security led to the intervention of a UN-sponsored peace-keeping force in 1992. While Aideed reluctantly accepted their arrival given the prospect of economic opportunities, his rivals Ali Mahdi and Mohamed Abshir Musa welcomed the presence of UN troops as a much needed counter-weight to Aideed’s military strength. The various interventions by the United Nations departments of UNITAF, UNISOM I and UNISOM II, and a myriad of non- governmental agencies, have been the subject of much controversy within and outside Somalia ever since. It can be safely said that while the relief programme in 1992 did much to mitigate the impact of famine, it also played into the hands of the warlords who became the main contractors to the agencies. Thus, self-declared faction chiefs with little control over their militias could without any mandate, and risible popular support, share out jobs and benefits among themselves, with little concern for the absence of a functioning administration. This situation has been a challenge to conflict resolution there.
The presence of an ever-growing international military force, based on US military power, failed to enforce peace during the Aideed regime. The position of the UN peacekeepers became untenable in the aftermath of the Somali attack on a unit of Pakistani soldiers, when Commander Aideed was singled out as the public enemy of the international community. The UN, and behind particularly the US military, were seen as abandoning their neutrality by becoming involved in factional politics. In Somalia Aideed, the paramount warlord was elevated into a national hero. The UN or more specifically the US intervention failed to establish a clear winner, and by moving against one particular faction accelerated the pattern of violence. At the point of UN withdrawal in 1994, the security situation was comparable to that of 1992. the situation has not challenged since then hence a challenge to conflict resolution.

The election of Colonel Abdullahi Yussuf Ahmed, the former leader of the SSDF as the first president of the federal state of Pundland was not welcomed by all the Somalis and has remained a challenge to conflict resolution in Somalia.
At the helm of a 69-member parliament based at the capital of Garowe, the president has the difficult task of steering the region into the calm and mildly prosperous waters through which neighbouring Somaliland has been cruising over the past few years. Ironically, Mohamed Egal, the president of Somaliland, has warned of border conflicts as two of the principal clan groupings of Pundland, the Dolbahunta and the Warsengeli, also occupy parts of Somaliland. It is also likely that the return of a functioning administration will divert some of the Somaliland livestock export and some of Berbera's shipping to the port of Bosoa in Pundland.
Following the same example, General Morgan of the SDF has voiced his intention of turning the Juba-valley into a federal region. This latest development appears as the first concerted attempt at manipulating the initiatives arising from the grass roots and wider civil society to reconstruct a system of political order in Somalia. The prominence of Morgan in the new state of Jubaland is in itself indicative of the character of this particular political configuration. Morgan has not emerged out of the peace-making efforts undertaken by traditional authorities, but as a result of his wresting of control of the port of Kismayo in 1992. The inflicted by Morgan’s rampaging troops was largely responsible for the famine that haunted this rich, agricultural region. His current attempt at setting up an administration serve as a warning that yesterday's war-lords may now seek to assume the garb of quasi legitimate, civilian authority.
Internal fragmentation is intensified by foreign pressure. The Somali crisis has spilled over into neighbouring countries who had to absorb refugees in their hundreds of thousands, and who have become drawn into the vortex of violence and instability. This has been indeed a challenge to conflict resolution in Somalia and its neighbours.
Somalia provides a base from which groups opposing the governments in Ethiopia and Kenya can operate freely. Ethiopia has therefore taken the authority to launch military raids into Somalia. Somalis fear that Ethiopia, if unable to establish a stable Somali State will settle for a weak one. Worried about the incursion into the Ogaden by fighters affiliated to Al Itahad al Islami, Ethiopia has been trying to build up an anti-Itahad coalition in Mogadishu comprising the SNF (Somali National Front) under the leadership of Morgan, the Rahenweyne Resistance Army and Ali Mahdi. While this has been ineffective, the Ethiopian arms shipments have poured oil on the flames of Somali conflict. Repeated incursions by Ethiopian forces into Somali territory in the southern Gedo region have incited Somali nationalists against the invader which remains a challenge to conflict resolution.

Conclusion
The search for conflict resolution in Somalia remains problematic as each time a peace agreement seems within the grasp of the negotiators the spoils of such peace provide the incentive for a fresh round of violence. As such violence is mostly inconclusive the prestige of faction leaders suffers and their authority diminished.
In turn, cleavages open up at increasingly lower levels, weakening further the claims to national leadership put forward by particular clans such as the Hawiye. Their fortunes may mirror the example of the Darod clan’s claim to leadership put forward at Sodere, which in the absence of a concrete plan to implement authority, ended up in a round of vicious in-fighting between Marehan and Majerteen at Kismayo.
It appears to many observers that the attempts at resurrecting the Somali states are going in circles. The lack of trust between factions makes any agreement difficult, particularly when it comes to the sensitive question of political office. The contest for the governorship of Mogadishu is the most urgent issue to be settled at current, and Ali Mahdi’s supporters have already clashed with those of Ali Ugass, the former mayor, and those of Muuse Sudi. As of old, the winning candidate may well turn out to be the man who can field the largest militia.
But violence can only achieve a hollow victory, as the demands of large groups of armed followers cannot be met from the meagre resources available to a reconstituted government. Dissatisfied militias are by now acculturated into a violent mode of acquisition, which can easily escape the control of political leaders. At Cairo, for example, the head of the Rahenwyne Resistance Army, Abdulkadir Mohamed Adan Sobe agreed to the cease-fire, but the men on the ground rejected the deal and continued in their attempt to oust Aideed’s militia.
At the same time there is a realization that the warlord economy is doomed to short-circuit, which gives hope to the peace process in Somalia. There are already signs of a reviving civil society in Mogadishu where independent newspapers have resurfaced and economic recovery is under way. Whether these first shoots of the Somali recovery will be allowed to blossom in national reconstruction will depend on the wisdom of faction heads, the inclusion of clan elders, and the control exercised over the armed gangs.
In the face of the history of the unitary state in Somalia, the future does seem to lie with some form of a federal structure where the aspirations of local people can be readily conveyed to the institutions of state. These institutions, their personnel and the constitutional framework must, however, be carried by the consensual approval of the population. Somali society is so deeply fatigued by the incessant insecurity that genuine attempts at reconstruction can count upon a large stock of goodwill. But there has to be a clear dissociation of tomorrow’s leaders from the violent turmoil of the past.

REFERENCES
Allan,T & A. Nichol, (1998): Water resources, prevention of violent conflict and the consistence of EU policy in the Horn of Africa. Saferworld: London.
Baechler, G., S. Bellwald, M. Suliman,(1996): Environmental Conflict Management Approaches and Implementation in the Horn of Africa. ETH: Zurich.
Besteman, C. and L. Cassanelli(1996): The Struggle for Land in Southern Somalia. Westview/Haan.
Duffield, M. (1994): ‘Complex Emergencies and the Crises of Devlopmentism.’ IDS Bulletin 25 (3).
Drysdale, J. (1994): Whatever happened to Somalia. Haan: London
Economist Intelligence Unit, Eritrea-Somalia-Djibouti: Country profile 1997-98, Eritrea
Hogg, R. (1997): Pastoralists, Ethnicity and the State in Ethiopia. London: Haan.
Homer-Dixon, T, (1991): "On the threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict." International Security, 16(2):76-116;
Human Rights Watch/Africa (2004): Behind the Red Line.

All conflicts in the world are largely caused by poverty. Discuss critically Root causes of violent conflict in developing countries

2011-10-13T02:39:00.000-07:00

INTRODUCTION
Poverty is the state of being without, often associated with need, hardship and lack of resources across a wide range of circumstances.
There are various causes of conflicts in developing countries where poverty is one of them. Here below is a presentation of various root causes of violent conflicts in developing countries;
First and foremost the horizontal inequalities and social exclusion, particularly when they coincide with identity or regional boundaries may increase a society’s predisposition towards violent conflict. Such background conditions can be exploited by political entrepreneurs.
Chronic poverty may also be a significant factor in sustaining wars and violent conflicts and predation becomes the only viable livelihood strategy for the chronically poor.
Modern conflicts are multi causal with a range of short term and long term factors coming into play, including a sudden economic slow down in the face of rising expectations, external shocks and state crises.
Poverty is a permissive or causal factor of some violent conflicts in some countries. It is indeed a structural cause, a trigger or an accelerator of violent conflicts.

A body of empirical work has emerged which examines poverty’s role as one of a number of causal factors behind violent conflict, although again, this does not differentiate between chronic and transient poverty.

Broadly, it is argued that uneven development processes lead to inequality, exclusion and poverty. This contributes to growing grievances particularly when poverty coincides with ethnic, religious, language or regional boundaries. These underlying grievances may explode into open conflict when triggered by external shocks such as a sudden change in terms of trade or mobilized by conflict entrepreneurs. Although few argue that poverty per se, causes conflict, research points to the importance of extreme horizontal inequalities, as a source of grievance which is used by leaders to mobilize followers and to legitimate violent actions (Stewart and FitzGerald, 2000).

Many of today’s conflicts are rooted in colonial era and post colonial development strategies, which led to the marginalization of the rural and urban poor. Uvin traces the roots of the Rwanda crisis back to failed development policies pursued in previous decades.

In Nepal, the failure of development assistance to trickle down, particularly to the rural poor in the mid-West contributed to growing discontent and eventually violent conflicts.

Further more in countries which have high value resources, for instance oil as in the case of Nigeria, inequitable resource extraction and distribution and the negative local environmental impacts have led to growing tensions/conflicts amongst the people.

More still violent conflicts are sometimes caused by extractive development policies where these lead to resource scarcity and environmental stress. This may manifest itself in tensions between pastoralists and farmers, or between the landless and landowners. It may also lead to stress-induced migration. Environmental degradation and resource scarcity, while perhaps not being the underlying cause of conflict may become a significant aggravator or trigger for violent conflicts.

The institutional capacity and policies of the state are critical in terms of ensuring that grievance is contained or to prevent it from becoming violent. Moore (2000) identifies a close link between bad governance and poverty. Politically underdeveloped states are too independent of their citizens. They are able to raise revenues through ‘unearned’ income that is mineral resources or foreign aid and have few incentives to provide public goods for their citizens. In fact Reno (2000) argues that rulers of ‘shadow states’ are motivated in the opposite direction.
Although on the other hand, Collier emphasizes that greed rather than grievance in his statistical analysis shows that countries with a large majority and small minority have a greater propensity to violent conflict than ethnically diverse countries. In a number of countries the coincidence of poverty and exclusion with minority or majority group boundaries has proved to be a combustible cocktail instrument of control. Although not all states are shadow states, in many parts of the world large numbers of people are excluded from the benefits of development, in part, as a result of conscious state policies.
It is also argued that even nominally democratic states may fail to address the needs of the chronically poor, as they do not represent an attractive constituency for political parties whose policies are geared to short term electoral cycles.

Additionally, state bias towards particular groups leads to changes in the entitlement configurations of excluded groups. In Sri Lanka for instance, land colonization and education policies had an important impact on the entitlements of the Tamil population, leading to alienation and growing grievance hence violent conflicts as resultant.

Conflicts also tend to be concentrated in countries with limited education provision. Hence lack of educated population may cause violent conflicts due to ignorance for example in Sierra Leone, the pool of marginalized young men was a significant driving force behind the conflicts there.
On the other hand Sri Lanka’s excellent record in the field of education did not inoculate it from violent conflict. Rebellion in the south was mobilized by the educated, but jobless youth. This suggests that education without economic opportunities is likely to lead to increased grievance hence violent conflicts.

Unfriendly International policies may also cause violent conflicts in certain countries. Moore, (2000) notes that bad governance leading to political underdevelopment is made, not born. He maintains that international policies contribute to processes which generate exclusion and grievance. For example structural adjustment programs (SAPs) have been criticized for undermining social contracts and coalitions. The budgetary axe tends to fall on programmes for the poor and such situations often result into violent conflicts.
Trade deregulation may have a crippling effect on certain groups, thus accentuating inter-group tension. For instance liberalization in many developing nations devastates peasant farming and agriculture in general. Moreover politically blind policies in transition countries do exacerbate social tensions. Land privatization policies in given countries for example run the risk of increasing conflict between their communities.

It should also be noted that a long term crisis of underdevelopment, of economic and social exclusion, may be exacerbated by short term shocks. Poverty and poor social services can fuel conflict ‘from below’, just as it feeds into ‘top down’ violence (Keen, 1998). Historically, marginalized sections of the population have been likely to turn to organized banditry.

Particular social conditions such as a surplus rural population or an economic crisis are therefore conducive to the development of predatory conflicts. The crusades, for example had a particular attraction for landless and younger sons (Keen, 1998). Similar processes can be identified in many of today’s conflicts as Keen notes: “in Sierra Leone, a chronic shortage of employment opportunities has been matched by a contraction in educational opportunities and in these circumstances many youths have turned to rebellion as a kind of ‘short cut’ to wealth as well as status.” (Keen, 1998).

Although liberalization has brought benefits to urban areas in many parts of the developing nations, it has also produced a fragile and brittle rural economy and growing economic disparities. Although poverty may not be the initial trigger for violent conflict, it can be an important factor that sustains it. In situations where there are few sources of livelihood, joining military groups may represent an essential survival strategy for instance in some nations for instance, poor households are increasingly dependent on recruitment to the country’s armed services.

It should also be realized that possible links between remote rural areas, poverty and conflict deserves further exploration. Many of today’s conflicts emanate from and are fought out in border regions that have historically suffered from marginality, limited voice and hard core poverty. For example conflicts in Nepal and Chiapas, Mexico are clearly linked to differential development and patterns of exclusion. Such border regions may have historically had an ambiguous relationship with the state and been a magnet for potential dissidents. Conflict entrepreneurs have been able to mobilize around a discourse of grievance. Moreover the weak presence of the state in such areas has made it easier for militant groups to mobilize and establish base areas for their activities.

Bottom up violence therefore serves economic functions. As Keen (1998) notes it also serves important psychological functions. Violence may be attractive because it offers the opportunity to restore a sense of power and status. It can effect a dramatic and immediate reversal of power relationships, something that may have an immediate attraction to young men with a deep seated resentment towards the established order.

In certain developing countries, rebel groups offer social mobility and a leadership role. Some youths see receive such with an alternative ‘career path’, when the political and economic mainstream has little to offer them. While there are therefore clearly links between poverty and bottom up violence, one could hypothesize that it is more likely to be the transiently poor, rather than the chronically poor that rebel. The chronically poor tend to be the least organized and most passive group in society.

Some studies have identified resource wealth rather than poverty to cause conflicts. Recent research by Paul Collier of the World Bank questions the view that conflicts are driven by grievance. He argues that popular perceptions are shaped by the discourse which conflicts themselves generate. Social scientists however, should be distrustful of the loud public discourse on conflict and question the language of protest often used by the conflicting parties themselves. War “cannot be fought just on hopes and hatreds” According to Collier, civil wars occur when rebel organizations are financially viable. Therefore it is the feasibility of predation which determines the risk of conflict. “..rebellion is motivated by greed, so that it occurs when rebels can do well out of war” (Collier, 2000).
.

CONCLUSION
This presentation examines violent conflicts and poverty. It has been argued that violent conflicts are not a side issue that can be ignored by developing coutries. It needs to be better understood, accounted for and tackled if development goals are to be achieved. There has been limited empirical research, which examines the nature of the relationship between poverty and violent conflicts.
This presentation examines the processes through which poverty generates grievance leading to violent conflict and concludes that poverty by itself is unlikely to lead to violent conflicts. It points out that the poor often lack political voice and organization. However, horizontal inequalities and social exclusion, particularly when they coincide with identity or regional boundaries may increase a society’s predisposition towards violent conflict. Poverty may also be a significant factor in sustaining wars as violent conflicts and predation become the only viable livelihood strategy for the poor.

Finally, this presentation examines and critiques the argument that greed rather than grievance causes conflict. In other words conflicts are driven by economic agendas rather than factors which cause grievance such as inequality and poverty.

REFERENCES
Atkinson, P (1997): The War Economy in Liberia: A Political Analysis’ Relief and
Rehabilitation Network Paper, 22, London
Bhalla, A & Lapeyre (1997): ‘Social exclusion, towards and analytical and operational
framework'’ Development and Change, Vo. 28, 413 - 433)
Chambers, R (1997): ‘Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last’ Intermediate
Technology Publications.
Collier, P (2000): ‘Economic causes of civil conflict and their implications for policy’
World Bank, June, 15, 2000.

Keen, D (1994): ‘The functions of famine in South Western Sudan: Implications for Relief’
in Macrae, J & Zwi, A (1994).
Keen, D (1998): ‘The economic functions of violence in civil wars’ Adelphi Paper,
International Institute of Strategic Studies, London.
Keen, D (2000): ‘Incentives and disincentives for violence’ in Berdal and Malone (2000).
Klugman, J (1999) ‘Social and Economic Policies to Prevent Complex Humanitarian
Emergencies. Lessons from Experience’ UNU/WIDER
Moore, M (2000): ‘Political Underdevelopment’ Paper presented at the 10th Anniversary
Conference of the Development Studies Institute, LSE, Sept, 2000.

TO WHAT EXTENT IS COMPETING THE BEST MODE OF RESPONDING TO CONFLICT

2011-10-13T02:38:00.000-07:00

INTRODUCTION
Because no two individuals have exactly the same expectations and desires, conflict is a natural part of our interactions with others.
A conflict is defined as a disagreement through which the parties involved perceive a threat to their needs, interests or concerns.
Also a conflict is defined as a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that the first party cares about.
Competing is a style in which one's own needs are advocated over the needs of others. It relies on an aggressive style of communication, low regard for future relationships, and the exercise of coercive power. Those using a competitive style tend to seek control over a discussion, in both substance and ground rules. They fear that loss of such control will result in solutions that fail to meet their needs. Competing tends to result in responses that increase the level of threat.
Competing is assertive and un-cooperative. The person advances their own cause at the expense of the other person. This mode is oriented in the use of whatever power is available to win, whether economic, based on position or the ability to advocate well. This might take the form of defending a position you feel is right, standing up for your rights, or trying to overwhelm the other person in order to win.
Competing is assertive and uncooperative as an individual pursues his own concerns at the other person's expense. This is a power-oriented mode in which you use whatever power seems appropriate to win your own position or your ability to argue, your rank or economic sanctions. Competing means "standing up for your rights," defending a position which you believe is correct, or simply trying to win.

This mode is considered to be very assertive and very uncooperative as sometimes the term power-oriented is associated with this mode. This can be an individual who pursues their beliefs at another person’s expense, using whatever power is appropriate to win his or her position. Although there might be some negative connotations to the way this mode is described, there are absolutely times when it is the best and most effective way to resolve a conflict
There are two sides of the competing mode as presented below;
As for the competing mode, imagine a person approaching conflict with someone holding an opposing idea like this: “I’m going to get my way no matter what you do. If I have to, I’ll get other people involved to support my position. If you do not go along with my decision, I will make life difficult for you.”
Then imagine a person using the competing mode to resolve a conflict along these lines This matter is of utmost importance to me. It will be very difficult for me to achieve my objectives unless you can see and support my point of view. Let me share why I need you to go along with my decision. Perhaps you can then see why I’ve been so insistent on my position.”
As we saw with the avoiding and collaborating modes, the words and tone you express can make a big difference when you’re applying a mode in a conflict situation. With competing, you can assert yourself by trying to intimidate or threaten others as a way of getting them to accept your decision. Alternatively, you can explain to others why a particular issue is so important to you and, therefore, why you want them to concede. Indeed, when competing is used with respect and recognizing that others may need to understand your situation before they comply. It is more likely you will get what you want. But if you treat them as if they do not deserve to know your reasons and motives, you are more likely to face resistance.

CONCLUSION
It is one thing to choose the right mode in a conflict situation, but it is another to implement it effectively so the potential use of that mode is fully realized. If the avoiding mode is the best choice, then avoid in a way that makes others feel valued, appreciated, and respected, and also tell them why you are leaving the situation and perhaps when you will be back. If the collaborating mode is the right choice, then collaborate in a way that encourages a mutually respectful dialogue in return. And if competing is the right mode to use, then use it in a manner that helps others understand and accept your strong position. Naturally, these same principles are relevant to the other modes, compromising and accommodating. In each case, choosing a mode wisely, but also using that mode in the most constructive manner possible, will go far in producing well-being and effective resolutions of conflict, rather than bad feelings and a potential worsening of the situation.

REFERENCES
House, R.J., & Rizzo, J.R. (1972): Conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7: 467-505.
Ivancevich, J.M., Szilagyi, A.D., Jr., & Wallace, M.J., Jr.( 1977): Organizational Behavior and Performance. California, CA: Goodyear Publishing.
Micheal,D and Stark, A (2001): Conflict of interest in the professions, Oxford University Press
Pitman,P. Turner, S., & Weed, F. (1983): Conflict in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall
Porter, R, J. Malone, T. (1992): Biomedical research: collaboration and conflict of interest. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
Thomas, K.W., & Kilman, R.H.( 1974): Conflict Mode Instrument. Tuxedo, New York

Critically explain the different characteristics of the principled type of negotiation.

2011-10-13T02:29:00.000-07:00

I NTRODUCTION
Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties, intended to reach an understanding, resolve point of difference, or gain advantage in outcome of dialogue, to produce an agreement upon courses of action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage, to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests of two person/ parties involved in negotiation process.
Principled negotiation is a problem solving, win/win approach to negotiation primarily developed by Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton as a part of the Harvard Negotiation Project at Harvard University . Principled negotiation attempts to advantage all parties by providing a method of negotiation that involves thinking creatively to generate as many options as possible that will satisfy both parties. This is different to a win/lose (or zero sum) approach in which one party's gains are the other's losses. For many situations it is the creative application of the elements of principled negotiation that are critical if a potential agreement satisfactory to each side is to be achieved.
Principled negotiation is hence the name given to the interest-based approach to negotiation. There are four fundamental principles of negotiation in principled negotiation as below;
Principle number one being separation of the people from the problem
Secondly it concerns focusing on interests, not positions
Thirdly is the issue of inventing options for mutual gain
And finally is the principle of insisting on objective criteria.
Separating the people from the problem means separating relationship issues (or "people problems") from substantive issues, and dealing with them independently. People problems, as Fisher, Ury and Patton observe, tend to involve problems of perception, emotion, and communication. (1991, p. 22) Perceptions are important because they define the problem and the solution. While there is an "objective reality," that reality is interpreted differently by different people in different situations. When different parties have different understandings of their dispute effective negotiation may be very difficult to achieve. This is what the proponents of this negotiation call framing problems.
People problems also often involve difficult emotions that is to say fear, anger, distrust and anxiety for example. These emotions get intertwined with the substantive issues in the dispute and make both harder to deal with.
Fisher, Ury and Patton consider communication problems to be "people problems" as well. They list three types of communication problems;
First, disputants may not be talking to each other. While their comments are formally addressed to the opponent, they are actually addressing some outside audience. They are grandstanding, or playing to the crowd.
A second communication problem arises when parties are not listening to each other. Rather than listening attentively to the opponent, parties may instead be planning their own response, or listening to their own constituency.
Finally, even when parties are listening and talking to each other, misunderstandings and misinterpretations may occur.
Negotiating about interests means negotiating about things that people really want and need, not what they say that want or need. Often, these are not the same. People tend to take extreme positions that are designed to counter their opponents’ positions. If asked why they are taking that position, it often turns out that the underlying reasons are their true interests and needs or are actually compatible, not mutually exclusive.
By focusing on interests, disputing parties can more easily fulfill the third principle of inventing options for mutual gain. This means negotiators should look for new solutions to the problem that will allow both sides to win, not just fight over the original positions which assume that for one side to win, the other side must lose.
The fourth rule is to insist on objective criteria for decisions. While not always available, if some outside, objective criteria for fairness can be found, this can greatly simplify the negotiation process. If union and management are struggling over a contract, they can look to see what other similar companies have agreed to use as an outside objective criteria. If people are negotiating over the price of a car or a house, they can look at what similar houses or cars have sold for. This gives both sides more guidance as to what is "fair," and makes it hard to oppose offers in this range.
Lastly, Fisher, Ury, and Patton counsel negotiators to know what their alternatives are. If you don’t know what your alternatives to a negotiated agreement are, you might accept an agreement that is far worse than the one you might have gotten, or reject one that is far better than you might otherwise achieve. For this reason, Fisher, Ury, and Patton stress the importance of knowing and improving your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) before you conclude negotiations.
In Getting to Yes, these proponents argue that almost all disputes can be resolved with principled negotiation. They reject the notion that some conflicts are inherently win-lose or that positional bargaining is ever a superior approach.
Other theorists, however, disagree that principled negotiation is an excellent tool to use in many disputes, but have out found that it needs to be supplemented with other approaches in the case of intractable conflicts. It also is more attuned to U.S. and Western European cultures which emphasize rational cost-benefit analysis, and de-emphasize the importance of relationships and emotions. Cultures which see relationship issues as central aspects of the conflict may find principled negotiation less useful.
In negotiation, there are multiple, shared, compatible, and conflicting interests. Identifying shared and compatible interests as "common ground" or "points of agreement" is helpful in establishing a foundation for additional negotiation discussions. Principles can often be extrapolated from "points of agreement" to resolve other issues. Also note that focusing on interests tends to direct the discussion to the present and future, and away from the difficulties of the past. If we have learned anything about the past, it is that "we can not change it." The past may help us to identify problems needing solution, but, other than that, it does not tend to yield the best solutions for the future.
Before seeking to reach agreement on solutions for the future, Fisher and Ury suggest that multiple solution options be developed prior to evaluation of those options. The typical way of doing this is called brainstorming.
In brainstorming, the parties, with or without the mediator's participation, generate many possible solution before deciding which of those best fulfill the parties' joint interests. In developing options, parties look for mutual gains. Select from Among Options by Using Objective Criteria
Using objective criteria (standards independent of the will of any party) is where the label "principled negotiation" comes from. Fisher and Ury suggest that solution selection be done according to concepts, standards or principles that the parties believe in and are not under the control of any single party. Fisher and Ury recommend that selections be based upon such objective criteria as precedent, tradition, a course of dealing, outside recommendations, or the flip of a coin.
In the event that the other party has some negotiating advantage, Fisher and Ury suggest that the answer is to improve the quality of your "best alternative to a negotiated agreement" (BATNA). For example, if you are negotiating for a job and want to make a case for a higher wage, you improve your negotiating power by having another job offer available, or at least as a possibility.
Fisher and Ury's maintain that the resistant competitive negotiator should insist on principled negotiation as a way that is most acceptable to the competitor. The principled negotiator might ask about the competitor's concerns. Here show that he or she understands these concerns and in return, ask the competitor to recognize all concerns.
Following the exploration of all interests, Fisher and Ury suggest seeking to induce the competitive negotiator to brainstorm options and to think in terms of objective criteria for decision making.
Another way of thinking about encouraging principled or integrative bargaining is to think in terms of matching, pacing, leading and modeling. To get a negotiator to shift orientations, it is critical that they first experience themselves as fully heard in terms of content, intensity and emotion. By so matching and pacing with a negotiator (asking a few clarifying questions), the negotiator will become more open to your lead and modeling of productive means of negotiating.
Conclusion
Given the above presentation, principled negotiation is especially crucial when an imbalance of power exists between the parties. It aims to establish common bonds and a shared effort to find solutions. It is more successful in societies whose cultures emphasize rational cost-benefit analysis, and de-emphasize the importance of relationships and emotions. Cultures which see relationship issues as central aspects of the conflict may find principled negotiation less useful.

REFERENCES
Catherine Morris, ed. Negotiation in Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding: A Selected Bibliography. Victoria, Canada: Peacemakers
David Lax and James Sebenius, 3D Negotiation, Harvard Business School Press, 2006.
Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen, foreword by Roger Fisher, Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most, Penguin, 1999, ISBN 0-14-028852-X
Fisher, R., Ury, W. & Patton, B. 1992, Getting to Yes, 2 nd edn, Business Books Limited, London.
Johnson, R. 1993, Negotiation Basics: Concepts, Skills and Exercises, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
Roger Dawson, "Secrets Elder, B. 1994, Communication Skills, MacMillan, South Melbourne
Roger Fisher and Daniel Shapiro, Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate, Viking/Penguin, 2005.
Ronald M. Shapiro and Mark A. Jankowski, The Power of Nice: How to Negotiate So Everyone Wins - Especially You!, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998, ISBN 0-471-08072-1

.