Ebola Spreads Across Borders

By Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

The Ebola virus is spreading fast throughout the Republic of Guinea in West Africa with seventy-eight deaths confirmed, cases reported in the capital, Conakry, and the neighbouring countries of Sierra Leone and Liberia. As the disease has now broken out of the forested areas in the South-East of the country, health experts are speaking of a crisis.

The Ebola outbreak in the Republic of Guinea has broken out of the forested areas in the South-East of the country, has spread to the capital city, Conakry and there have been confirmed cases in neighbouring Liberia and two cases, and two deaths, in Sierra Leone (suspected cases). While the World Health Organization describes the scenario as "a rapidly changing situation", Doctors Without Borders have labeled the outbreak as "an unprecedented epidemic".

In the Republic of Guinea, where the disease appeared at the end of February/beginning of March, the number of suspected cases has increased to 122 (WHO figures) and 78 deaths, a Case Fatality Rate of over 62 per cent. Two of the suspected cases have been detected among healthcare workers. The first confirmed case was admitted for treatment on February 9.

National Emergency Committees have been set up in the Republic of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone together with Rapid Response Teams. Case isolation units have been placed in strategic areas and training has been provided to healthcare professionals.

The Ebola fever virus is named after the river Ebola in the Republic of Zaire (now DR Congo) where it was discovered in 1976. It is transmitted by contact with the skin, body fluids or meat of infected persons or animals. A common source of infection in some parts of Africa is when people place their hands on the deceased person at funerals.

The incubation period is between two to twenty-one days, after which the temperature rises sharply. The patient feels an intense tiredness, muscular pains, headaches, sore throat and then vomiting, diarrhea, a rash on the skin, dehydration, kidney and liver failure and massive internal and external hemorrhage. Patients suddenly start bleeding from the nose, ears, anus, mouth, penis or vagina, eyes or even skin.

Around 1,200 people have lost their lives from the Ebola virus since it was discovered in 1976. There have been serious outbreaks in the DR Congo/Zaire in 1976 (218 cases), 1995 (315) and 2007 (264); Sudan in 1976 (284), and Uganda in 2000 (425).

There is as yet no vaccine or treatment for this disease. In Europe, the Portuguese health authorities have alerted the medicinal services for possible entrance into the country from Guinea Bissau.

Editorial

RECKLESS TALK

Over the last couple of weeks a number of prominent but empty politicians have called for the overthrow of the Mahama administration on account of what they see as maladministration and perceived corruption.

It is obvious that these reckless politicians are not just against the Mahama administration but intend to overthrow the 1992 constitution and return Ghana to the dark days of military dictatorship.

 They are spitting on the sacrifices which proud Ghanaians made to rescue the country from under the jackboots of military dictatorship to the limited democracy Ghana is enjoying today.

In our view, no matter how bad the Mahama administration may be, it still far better than a military dictatorship.

At the very least, Ghanaians still have the right to challenge their government and its policies and to remove it from power democratically?

Those who yearn for the days of long curfews, torture, detentions without charge or trial and general abuse of democratic rights must understand that the peopled of Ghana will not allow themselves to be plunged into to anarchy again.

These reckless politicians will soon learn that they impress nobody with their cacophony and that they stand rejected by all decent Ghanaians.

CPP SURPRISED AT DR BAWUMIA

CPP Chairperson Samia Nkrumah

We have read the observations of Dr Bawumia, the running mate of the NPP presidential candidate for elections 2012 in the “Daily Graphic” of Thursday May 3, 2012. His recent lecture is an opportunity to debate the development policy alternatives of our country with an expectation that the policy prescriptions of the various political parties will be the pertinent basis of our political and electoral choices.

According to the vice presidential candidate, he is surprised that the single digit inflation of the economy has not achieved a lower cost of living in Ghana. He suspects a statistical error or that the claim by the NDC is simply false. It is interesting and instructive that government response was not in denial of his assertion, but split hairs on statistical definitions, assumptions and clarifications that were not easy to follow and said nothing about the economic and living condition of the people.

The Convention People’s Party (CPP) is however amazed at Dr. Bawumia’s surprise that expenditure cuts and tight monetary policy to reduce deficits and control inflation in under-developed and post -colonial economies are not sufficient and do not necessarily lead to a reduction in the cost of living or improve the quality of life of the people.

In fact, Dr Ashong formerly of Centre for Policy Analysis and a former Deputy Minister of Finance and Economic Planning expressed the view that equitable growth and job creation capacity of under-developed economies could be sacrificed by a tight fiscal and monetary policy approach in stabilisation. He warned at the Homecoming Economic Conference of the Kufour administration that “government should not sacrifice growth in the fight against inflation”

We are again surprised by the view expressed by Dr Bawumia in the light of the experience of researchers, policy makers and development managers in under-developed and post- colonial economies. The contemporary knowledge is that stabilisation measures by expenditure cuts and tight monetary policy only treat the symptoms of the deficits because the deficits do not by themselves cause inflation but propagate inflationary pressures caused by structural distortions such as fluctuations in export earnings, rise in import expenditure levels (“external shocks”) and stagnation in domestic agri-business.

This is in fact the conclusion of a study on “Economic Stabilisation in Ghana” by Dudley Seers and David Felix in World Bank Report No AF 75 A of 24th May 1968. The observation is also affirmed by the article “Inflation in Chile- An Unorthodox Approach” in International Economic Papers by Osvaldo Sunkel, a respected world class economist.

Indeed the cause of the deficits in Ghana is explained correctly and succinctly by Dr J.K Kwakye a Senior Economist at the Institute of Economic Affairs as reported in the Daily Graphic of Thursday May 3, 2012. Dr Kwakye pointed out that “the continuous high trade and current account deficits reflected large imbalances between exports and imports.”

The Nkrumaist development policy direction that price stability, the prosperity of our nation, an improvement in the quality of life of our people and a less dependent economy in a post-colonial economy lie in a reduction of import expenditure, the substitution of imports with domestic production to create jobs and an increase in export earnings is confirmed by the findings of Dr. Kwakye.

The policy recommendation of Dr Kwakye is that “reducing the imbalances calls for policies to increase export earnings including the expansion and increase of value content of exports and to reduce import demand.” He also recommended “support for domestic industries to produce more import substitutes”

The Nkrumaist policy prescriptions from the standpoint of its development philosophy of decolonisation thus include,

1 The development the productive resources of the country to satisfy domestic export.

2 The diversification of the agricultural export commodity sector.

3 An increase in the production of food and raw material agriculture for food security and industrialisation.

4 The development of inter-regional and continental trade.

5 Investments in the social sectors of education, health and housing.

The policy justification is that fiscal and monetary policy for sustainable long term stability is complemented and underpinned by investments in the productive sectors of the economy to increase export receipts and reduce import expenditure.

The implementation strategy of the CPP in this regard will be the development of a partnership between a CPP Government as provider of public goods and services such as research and technology, the private sector as strategic investors in processing plants with government support where necessary and applicable, and organised farmers in food and raw material agriculture with support from government as producers of primary produce with market access to the processing plants.

The policy outcomes will be;

1 The creation of jobs in the agricultural and manufacturing sectors.

2 Modernisation of agriculture from subsistence to industrial and commercial agriculture.

3 Increase in agricultural and rural incomes.

4 The linkage of the manufacturing and agricultural sectors.

5 Growth and expansion of the manufacturing sector.

6 Reduction in balance of trade deficits.

7 An internally sustained and rigorous price stability.

Dr. Bawumia also stressed that we cannot do the same things and expect different results. The lesson is that it may perhaps be the case that sustainable price stability that delivers quality life to our people may not necessarily be the adoption of tight fiscal and monetary policy but a fiscal strategy that balances short term stimulus and long term stability within the policy framework of the CPP development philosophy of decolonisation of our economy.

The study of Dr Kwakye confirms that our development imperative is the transformation of our colonial import dependent peasant agricultural economy with structural deficits to an internally sustained and less dependent industrialised economy that is supported not by subsistence but commercial and industrial agriculture.

Dr Bawumia has given an indication that there have been monumental policy and leadership failures in the economic development management of our country by the P/NDC and NPP because after twenty nine years of implementation of tight fiscal and monetary policy, the deficits and currency depreciation are recurrent if not endemic.

Dr. Bawumia has truthfully and correctly noted with dismay and regret that in spite of these policy measures or because of it, we remain a dependent economy on “donor support”, a fragile peasant agricultural economy with mass unemployment and a low standard and high cost of living. What the Vice Presidential candidate did not say however, were the reasons for the adoption of the policy in the light of its patent failure.

The deficit reduction strategy of tight fiscal and monetary policy is deliberate and self-serving. The concessionary loans that are extended by multi-lateral financial institutions as a condition for its adoption gives procurement rights to our decision makers and serves as the feedstock of their corruption for the purchase of political power and self-satisfaction. (The NPP and NDC have their preferred road construction firms). For the multi-lateral financial institutions, the policy condition that the loans are precluded from utilisation in the directly productive sectors of the economy and the exclusion of commercial loans to Government ensures that we are debt tied and dependent on them.

The economic development history of Asia has demonstrated that the economies of Malaysia, China South Korea, Indonesia and India were transformed from peasant agricultural economies to be industrialised within twenty years. Ghana can achieve same with the relevant policy that is cognisant of its development history and mission that necessarily means the abrogation of colonial relations and selfishness in our development efforts.

The time is now for Ghana to re-commit herself to her mission in history in the struggle for economic freedom and prosperity under the vanguard leadership of the CPP. A vote for the CPP is therefore a positive vote for the most patriotic, nationalist and non-ethnic based political party with the most relevant and viable development policy guidelines and prescriptions that are founded on our development history of anti-colonialism and Nkrumaist enlightened self-interest.

The bedrock of the development philosophy of the CPP is that “We prefer self-government with danger to servitude in tranquillity”and we embrace the development responsibility of colonial freedom that “Our independence should demonstrate that the black man is capable of managing his own affairs.” We acknowledge the additional responsibility to make a contribution to global civilisation from the perspective of the “African Personality” and the quest of continental union as the necessary condition for our growth and development. These are the creeds that founded our nation and remain the foundations of its existence. They are our commitments, our path to development, our historic mission, and the footholds of our prosperity and dignity.

 Ekow Duncan

CPP Shadow Cabinet Member on Agriculture

www.conventionpeoplesparty.org

ANC worse than Apartheid?

Julius Malema

Julius Malema, leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) has chastised South Africa's ruling government, the African National Congress (ANC) stating they are worse than Apartheid that deprived blacks of their rights.

Malema, who was once a leading member of the ANC, alleged that the party, lead by President Jacob Zuma has failed South Africans, especially blacks, woefully and must face prosecution.

The EFF leader was speaking to teeming supporters at the North West Provincial Manifesto rally in Montshioa, North West Province, South Africa.

South African news outfit, News24 reported that Malema alleged that Jacob Zuma, who is running for office in the May 7 elections, is enjoying a luxurious life while poor South Africans are still living in abject poverty.

"Zuma must be arrested for stealing from the poor. Zuma must rot in jail... Zuma does not belong among us," News24 quoted the EFF leader as saying.

Touching on allegations that Jacob Zuma spent R246 million ($23 million) on the makeover of his private residence in Nkanda, KwaZulu-Natal, Malema disclosed that he has personally started taking steps to see the South African president arrested.

"Zuma will be arrested soon...I am going to meet the police on Monday to give them evidence that Zuma stole from the poor. We have opened a criminal case against him in Pretoria," he said.

Malema bemoaned the poor infrastructure in the North West which he said had collapsed since 1994 when the ANC took over the affairs of South Africa.

According to him, the ANC government inherited solid infrastructure but "Today, it is a dumping centre. Streets are riddled with potholes as big as a swimming pool in Nkandla."

Alleging that the ANC is worse that Apartheid, Malema said the government "built RDP houses that collapsed after the handing over ceremony. The house literally follows them after the handover. They gave you taps not water. They installed electric cable in your houses and not electricity."

The May 7 National and Provincial Elections will be a heated race between Jacob Zuma's ANC, Julus Malema's EFF, Helen Zille's Democratic Alliance (DA), Mosiuoa Lekota's Congress of the People and Mangosuthu Buthelezi's Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP).

The polls will also see the election of 400 members to the National Assembly of South Africa.

Except of a few political billboards, and posters, it is difficult for visitors to know that there is an impending elections. Most of these billboards are of Jacob Zuma's ANC which is urging blacks to vote for their "own". 

   

Why H.E. Mahmoud Abbas Revives U.N. Bid by Signing onto 15 UN and Other Related Agencies

Mahmoud Abbas

It is worthy of notice that the current US-brokered negotiations being led by Secretary of State John Kerry are hitting a snag not because of Palestine's lack of commitment but because of Israel's in transigence .

To give you an appreciation of the matter, it is necessary to bring you up to speed with the latest developments. On 2nd April 2014, the Foreign Affairs Ministry of the State of Palestine led by Dr. Riyad Al-Maliki submitted to the Representative of the UN Secretary General, the Representative of the Swiss Union and the Deputy  Representative of the Netherlands fifteen (15) documents signed by H.E. Mahmoud Abbas requesting to join various UN and international agencies.

How Did We Get to This Unpleasant Destination?

Some nine months ago, Secretary John Kerry revived negotiations between Israel and Palestine. The renewed talks had two clauses:

One, that Israel would free 104 Palestinian prisoners jailed before the Oslo Accords in 4 different batches and the final batch would be freed on 29th March 2014. In return, Palestine would freeze its efforts to join any new UN agencies.

Two, there were to be concrete talks that would lead to a two-state agreement by 29th April 2014 (within 9 months) True to their word, the Palestinians froze all efforts to join any UN agency. Initially, Israel made good on its promise by freeing the first three batches of prisoners only to keep procrastinating the release of the last batch. This delay tactic was meant to buy more time and continue illegal expansion by seeking to extend the period of the ongoing negotiations.

It is worthy of notice that the Palestinian stance is that the two terms" of reference of the negotiations should be treated separately. Therefore since Palestine has frozen its UN bid, Israel should release all the remaining prisoners before there can be any further discussions on the second clause of the negotiations.

Notwithstanding the above position, the Palestinian Authority is still keen on keeping the talks alive. That is why it has signed to join only 15 UN agencies and international organizations even though it is entitled to up to 63. It is continuing to exercise restraint with the hopes of keeping the efforts of Secretary John Kerry alive.

The Palestinian Authority would want to state that, it is forever ready to welcome Secretary John Kerry at any time of his choosing in order to complete the ongoing negotiating efforts.

The time has come for the Israeli Government to decide on what it needs. Does Israel want to be an occupier while directing negotiations? Is she committed enough to negotiations even
though she denies the rights of the other party? Is she really committed to the peace efforts with her continued siege on the Gaza Strip and her aggressive settlement campaign and the Judaization of Jerusalem and Palestinian lands and sanctuaries?

From: Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
State of Palestine,
Ramallah

Date: 02nd April 2014

The Embassy of the State of Palestine in Accra presents its compliments to the Ghana News Agency and all Media Houses in the Republic of Ghana, and has the honour to forward to the latter, a press release from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Palestine to explain Why H.E. Mahmoud Abbas revives U.N. bid by signing onto 15 UN and other related Agencies.

The Embassy of the State of Palestine in Accra is grateful to the Ghana News Agency and all Media Houses in the Republic of Ghana, for your usual cooperation

 Accra, 3rd April, 2014

To:

Ghana News Agency and
All Media Houses,
Accra-Ghana

                    Kerry and Rasmussen, a jackass and a donkey   

By Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

The difference between John Kerry and Anders Rasmussen is as great as that between a jackass and a donkey. Both are stubborn, both do the spadework of their masters, both are the worst and least competent candidates for their jobs, both do what they are told. Both are arrogant, belligerent, chauvinistic and downright insolent.

The West is in a pickle. It backed a clique of Fascists, terrorists, murderers, opportunists, thieves and torturers in Kiev to stage or support a Putsch, remove the legitimate government of the Ukraine outside each and every legal parameter in place, it shook hands with those who were placed in power by others who had vowed to murder Russians and Jews, by those who had fought against Russia in Chechnya, by those who had boasted of having links with al-Qaeda. Then they complain when Russia expresses concern.

The West is in a pickle. It refused to respect the democratic free and fair referendum in Crimea on reintegrating inside the Russian Federation just as it refused to accept the holding of a referendum in Libya before it backed terrorists on its own lists of proscribed groups to wreak havoc on a society living in peace and prosperity for decades.

The West is in a pickle. It imposed sanctions on people who had already removed their money from Western banks (after all, you know that if you have your assets in any Western institution that they are liable to be stolen), then when they saw that their silly sanctimonious sanctions had failed, they tried to block Master Card and Visa in Russia, then quickly recanted when Russia said "OK then we won't use them and we'll issue our own system", depriving them of billions in revenue.

And now, on the back of a predictable lying media campaign churning out daily packages of "Russia annexed Crimea" and about "Russian troops massing on Ukraine's borders" we have the dynamic duo John Kerry and Anders Rasmussen (remember the guy of the insulting and blasphemous Mohammed cartoons fame who united the Islamic world against Denmark? A fitting Secretary-General of NATO!)...we have the dynamic duo, the Batman and Robin of the international scene now that the European Union has fallen apart, bickering against Germany, calling the shots, hee-hawing like a jackass and braying like a donkey, with as much consequence, or less.

What do a donkey or a jackass do before they get their hind kicked or their hide tanned? So, to the background music of "Batman" let us go to NATO headquarters and listen to the anachronistic and arrogant, belligerent bilge from the guttersnipes of international relations and let us expose this incompetent duet in its sheer hypocrisy.

On the 15th anniversary of NATO's murderous bombing campaign in Serbia, Rasmussen referred to Russia's "aggression" being "the gravest threat to European security in a generation and it challenges our vision of a Europe whole, free and at peace." Interesting. So for Rasmussen, a free and fair, democratic referendum is an act of aggression and annexation, is it? Then apart from being downright rude, he is utterly incompetent, unless as the head of what is after all the tangible face of the weapons lobby, a club for warmongers, NATO. NATO, you know, that organization of cowards that only attacks defenceless states it has rendered ungovernable through the use of terrorists and criminals.

And so, Mr.Anders Fogh Rasmussen, what about Kosovo? Was that not an act of intrusion? Did NATO not carve out the heart of Serbian territory, where the Serbian nation came together against the Turk, your buddy. What was that about the integrity of States? Are you so damned incompetent that you ignore the fact that terrorists from Ushtria Çlirimtare ë Kosovës, or Kosovo Liberation Army for you, were perpetrating terrorist acts against the Serbian police force and civilians, were firing at ambulances which came to help? Is that, Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, how you respect the emergency services in NATO countries? Do you show them the same respect that you showed to Moslems when your newspapers, when you were Prime Minister, published insulting and blasphemous pictures of Mohammed?

And now let's move to the other side of the bed to find Horseface Batman, Jackass-in-chief, braying about Russia invading a country on "a trumped up pretext". So what exactly did the United States of (hands on hearts) America do in Iraq? Ah right I remember, it spread freedom an' Democracy, winning hearts and minds by blasting the limbs or faces off kids, destroying their families with cluster bombs, gang-raping their womenfolk, sodomising their menfolk, torturing, peeing in food, forcing Moslems to eat pork (what is it with NATO and Moslems?), then sending them to the torture and concentration camp at Guantanamo after having fallen into the hands of that Great American heroine, Lynndie "I wuz jus' havin' fun" England and her demonic playpals in Abu Ghraib.

Ah yes Mr. John Kerry, I remember that phrase "invading another country". After all, we have seen it all before, haven't we? We saw it in Iraq when the country you represent invaded a sovereign nation outside the auspices of the UN Security Council, you know, the place that dictates whether you can or cannot intervene, we saw it in Iraq when NATO military hardware was deployed, destroying civilian structures, murdering civilians and targeting electricity and water supplies so that White House cronies could make millions at the expense of the Iraqi people from rebuilding contracts.

Yes Mr. John Kerry, we saw what "invading another country" means in Libya, where terrorists were deployed to destroy a sovereign state on a "trumped up pretext" to remove Muammar al-Qathafi, seize Libya's assets and sow chaos in the region, destroying the most prosperous country in Africa, the one with the highest human development index, the one whose Leader was about to receive a UN prize for his humanitarian work, the one who was working hard to shape the African Union and the one who was costing the corporations pulling your strings billions in revenue.

And we have seen the Jackass approach to international relations in Syria, where Mr. John Hey! I ain't incompetent! Kerry pretended he did not know the terrorists fighting President Assad (more popular in Syria than your boss is in the USA) had chemical weapons, despite the fact that information on this had been provided. We have seen the Jackass approach to international relations in Syria where the USA was itching to get involved and only did not because Russia said no.

It is patently clear that in reiterating their diatribes, the Jackass duo underline their incompetence. After an illegal Putsch in Kiev, the Ukrainian Government ceased to hold any authority in Crimea, whereby the Crimean Constitution was the law in force. It decided to hold a referendum. Democracy won, NATO lost. Nobody has annexed anything in Crimea, different from Iraq, from Kosovo, from Libya. Neither has anyone perpetrated an atomic terrorist attack against civilians. Twice.

So now, Batman and Robin, the Jackass Duo, what was that you were saying about Kosovo, about Iraq, about Libya, about Syria? Now sit down you two, shut up, stop playing with each other and let us hear the new NATO Anthem: "He who turns and runs away comes back to run another day". So, given that Russia is not a defenceless state rendered useless through your terrorists, Crimea is Russia. Get used to it!

Why is a progressive pope allowing anti-gay bishops to preach hate?

Pope Francis

By Michael O'Loughlin

A president struggling in the polls at home traveled to the Vatican last week. He was hoping that a photo with the wildly popular Pope Francis might boost his dismal approval ratings. But because the president had been championing historic LGBT legislation to appeal to his base, some wondered if the pope would actually use their meeting to chastise the president -- reminding him how the policies he favors are out of sync with church teachings.

Barack Obama, right? No -- the president in question was Nigeria's embattled leader, President Goodluck Jonathan.

Late last week, the media reported, analyzed, critiqued, conjectured, and speculated on every aspect of Obama's meeting with Pope Francis, including whether or not the two men would discuss same-sex marriage and other LGBT rights in the United States. But five days earlier, with little attention or fanfare, Pope Francis received Jonathan, fresh off the president signing a bill criminalizing homosexuality in Nigeria.

According to the law, enacted in January, any citizen who enters into a union with person of the same sex faces a 14-year prison sentence. Gay Nigerians who simply assemble with like-minded others could also face jail time. Jonathan is facing a tough reelection battle next year, and the law was widely seen as an effort to shore up support among conservative Nigerians. Since its enactment, journalists have documented frightening stories of violence committed against gay men.

Catholic bishops in Nigeria, in a letter to Jonathan, heralded the new law as "courageous" and "a clear indication of the ability of our great country to stand shoulders high in the protection of our Nigerian and African most valued cultures of the institution of marriage." They weren't the only religious leaders happy with a stepping-up of repression against gay Africans. In February, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signed a bill that threatens openly gay Ugandans with lifetime prison sentences. While Catholic leaders rejected the 2009 version of the bill, which contained an infamous death penalty provision, some bishops -- as well as Anglican and Orthodox leaders -- have been vocal in their support of the most recent measure. (Africa is the Roman Catholic Church's fastest-growing region, in terms of membership.)

In response to the developments in Nigeria and Uganda, the Vatican said nothing. The pope also said nothing publicly on the issue of gay rights during the Nigerian president's audience last week. (An official Vatican announcement said that the two men talked about "the protection of the dignity of the human person and his or her fundamental rights," but did not specify further. At least one media outlet in Nigeria reported that Jonathan "justifie[d]" his country's new law in his audience with the pope.)

Had this all happened just over a year ago, when Pope Benedict was routinely reminding the world of the Catholic Church's opposition to gay rights, it might have been unsurprising. The church's fear and rejection of LGBT people was palpable then, with few exceptions. But with the softer, gentler touch of Pope Francis, and his widely heralded reputation as a liberal reformer, the Vatican's recent silence has raised some eyebrows -- and some ire.

Violence and discrimination against gays and lesbians around the world is very real and, in places, growing. From Nigeria to Uganda to Russia, efforts to codify rampant homophobia and lend legitimacy to the mobs that torment sexual minorities have widespread backing. That some Catholic bishops support these laws seems anathema to the Gospel that they are supposed to uphold, their critics argue, in particular to the central tenets of acceptance and kindness -- a stance to which the pope seemed to lend his support in much-lauded comments last year.

Why, then, won't Pope Francis speak out more directly against political leaders like Jonathan and against his own bishops who support draconian treatment of gay people? Some say failing to do so threatens to derail his conciliatory image, hinged on engaging in dialogue with a changing world. As Bob Shine of New Ways Ministry, which advocates for LGBT Catholics, wrote in late March, "It is time for Pope Francis to speak out clearly and forcefully against Uganda's law, and other similar anti-gay laws around the globe. He can save lives."

* * *

The Catholic Church still teaches that sex between two men or two women is "intrinsically disordered." Yet last summer, Pope Francis captured the world's imagination when he decided to emphasize the other half of that controversial teaching: the side that says gay people must nonetheless be afforded dignity and respect. "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" the pope told a reporter on a flight to Rome from Rio de Janeiro. He even used the English word "gay" rather than opting for the more clinical term "homosexual," which is sometimes used maliciously.

Later that year, the pope lamented in an interview that the church had become bogged down by its obsession with opposing abortion and same-sex marriage.

Progressive and openly gay Catholics cheered. The Advocate, the nation's largest LGBT magazine, put the pope on its cover. Some bishops even seemed to drop their guard a bit and challenge traditional Catholics to think more broadly about the issue. The bishop of St. Petersburg, FL, Robert Lynch, wrote on his blog, "The Church needed to be kinder and gentler to those who identify themselves as gay and lesbian, be less judgmental and more welcoming." Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, meanwhile, said that "homosexuals are not criminals" and do not deserve incarceration, according to Britain's Catholic Herald.

Conservatives struck back, however, noting that Pope Francis hadn't changed any doctrine. Words were just words; formally speaking, the pope was in line with his predecessors.

But in the Catholic context, words and symbols can have enormous impact and profoundly change lives. "Francis's new tone has done immense good. Many gay and lesbian Catholics have told me that they feel welcome in their church for the first time in years, sometimes for the first time in their lives," James Martin, a Jesuit priest and editor at America told me. Martin also thinks that what the pope has said should make bishops around the world reconsider how they engage on gay issues. "In countries where [gays] are in fact judged, and judged harshly, one of the most important moral voices of our time is saying, 'Stop.' It's a critical step forward," he said.

Still, even among those pleased by the pope's relatively liberal approach to gay rights, there are many people left wondering why he's stopped short -- why he hasn't condemned the worst abuses against gay people. This concern even prompted a Twitter and email campaign, #PopeSpeakOut, earlier this year.

The disconnect between the pope's words and actions stems partly from the fact that Pope Francis appears hesitant to become involved with what the Vatican considers local issues, which includes national laws punishing gay people for their sexual orientation. And although counterintuitive, this hesitance actually reflects a certain liberalism about the internal dynamics of the church: Catholic progressives, used to the rigid, authoritarian rule of Rome over the past few decades, have long wanted to see the devolution of power away from the Vatican. This was the only way, they believed, that lay people -- with more access to bishops than to Rome's highest echelons -- could gain some input in the church's decision-making processes. 

Pope Francis seems to have taken this concern to heart: Part of his much-celebrated reforms appears to include returning authority to local bishops. In November, in his first major written work as head of the church, the pope said, "I ... must think about a conversion of the papacy. It is my duty, as the Bishop of Rome, to be open to suggestions which can help make the exercise of my ministry more faithful to the meaning which Jesus Christ wished to give it and to the present needs of evangelization."

But bishops, not a centralized Roman bureaucracy, are the men funding campaigns against same-sex marriage in the United States, and they're the ones supporting laws that imprison gays in Africa -- or do them even worse harm. Liberal Catholics, in other words, are seeing both the good and the bad of what they wished for.

Now many human rights advocates say silence from the pope, regardless of internal church issues, isn't acceptable; human dignity should trump bureaucratic reform. In October, Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a letter to Pope Francis asking the church to use its influence "to protect people in sexual and gender minorities from further abuse." To achieve this, HRW said it wanted the pope to "[p]ublicly condemn violence against people in sexual and gender minorities" and support the "decriminalization of consensual, sexual relationships and support the repeal of other unjust criminal penalties for people in sexual and gender minorities."

As for whether his voice would matter, it's certainly possible for the pope -- especially this pope -- to use his global platform to drive a conversation, perhaps even sway opinion. He led a massive protest against Western military intervention in Syria last September, for instance, rallying Catholics for a worldwide day of prayer. He has showed the world that he knows how to mobilize believers.

What's more, even during the hostile climate created under Pope Benedict, there were some positive rumblings at the Vatican that show Pope Francis likely wouldn't have much to lose in speaking out against egregious violations of LGBT rights. Responding to protests against its unwillingness to back a U.N. resolution on sexual orientation, Rome said in 2008 that it would support eliminating criminal penalties for homosexuality (even while it would not support same-sex unions and some other policies). More recently, Pope Francis's personal representative to Uganda, Archbishop Michael Blume, expressed concern about Uganda's anti-gay bill and wrote that he hoped the Holy Spirit would give Museveni "wisdom" as the president considered signing it into law.

Given his own public comments ("Who am I to judge?"), Blume's words, and other signals, it's probable that Francis is against repressive, anti-gay laws. And already, in his first year as pope, he has taken an important step toward a new dynamic around LGBT issues in the church. Yet if he truly wants to move forward, he will have to build on his initial outreach and ask, publicly, that Catholic bishops and other leaders keep up. If the pope truly wants the Catholic Church to chart a course for social justice around the world, his leadership on this issue must demonstrate that his powerful institution is a genuine voice for the oppressed.

Global trust in internet has declined

The vice president of the European Commission has warned against a global decline in trust in the internet.

During the CeBIT tech fair in Hanover, Germany, Neelie Kroes condemned mass surveillance activities by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Britain’s eavesdropping agency GCHQ, saying that billions of web users around the world no longer trust the internet.

The comments came after classified document leaked by former NSA employee Edward Snowden in June last year revealed that the GCHQ was secretly accessing the network of cables, which carry the world’s phone calls and internet traffic and has been sharing the data with the NSA.

The joint spying practices by the two agencies include interception of millions of online communications by ordinary people and eavesdropping on world leaders, including Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel for almost a decade.

“To make the ‘leap of faith’ into this new world, reliability and trust is a pre-condition. But when even the phone of the chancellor is not sacred, that trust can never again be taken for granted. Not only that, it is clear that for millions of Germans, and billions around the world, that trust is now missing,” Kroes stated.

The European Commission official added that the leaks by Snowden have been a “wake-up call.” She urged people around the world not to “snooze through it.”

The EU commissioner added that it would be hard to put the trust back into the internet, but that the future online security can be improved through protecting internet users “with more than slogans.”