AU LEADERS SNAP AT ICC

Kenya President Uhuru Kenyatta

It looks like African leaders are gradually coming up to the obvious realization that the setting up of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was designed to deal only with Africans and African leaders who behave badly.

At the just ended AU summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, which ended on Monday 28^th May 2013 the organization  passed an almost unanimous resolution urging the International Criminal Court (ICC) to refer the crime against humanity cases against President Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto back to Kenya. Currently, President Uhuru Kenyatta and his Deputy, are facing charges at the ICC for alleged crimes against humanity in connection with the 2007 post-election violence in Kenya, in which more than 1,000 people died and 600,000 others were displaced.

Ever since the ICC was constituted in 2002, virtually every accused person who has been tried there has been an African. The ICC was set up by the UN Security Council to  prosecute people for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.  

Although most members of the UN originally signed the treaty, the United States, Israel and Sudan withdrew from it, claiming that they did think that the ICC rules should apply to them.

Since then the United States is known to have   committed atrocities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, sometimes using carpet-bombing and drones to kill hundreds of civilians at the same time.

Israel is also known to have caused genocide in Palestoine. However, none of the leaders of these countries have been brought before the ICC.

Paradoxically, although Cote d’Ivoire is not a signatory to the ICC agreement, the ICC had the Ivorian President, Laurent Gbagbo  arraigned before it, and then made Ouattara sign the treaty later with retrospective effect.

There are mass killings in Bahrain but the ICC does not appear to be interested.

This selective and biased attitude by the ICC is what the AU Chairman and Prime Minister of Ethiopia has described as a degeneration to “some kind of race hunting”.

It is as a result of such lop-sided sense of justice that the AU leaders, last Monday, mandated African Union Commission to present an objection to the UN on ICC charges against Uhuru and Ruto.

They resolved that the ICC has gone out of its mandate and was engaged in witch-hunt. They said 99 percent of cases before the ICC are against Africans.

The United States and Britain over the weekend condemned the move, saying that it is an attempt to shield the two Kenyan leaders from justice. Observers have however countered by accusing the US of double standards since the genocide committed against the Iraqi people has not been sent to the ICC or tried in the US itself.

So far, the ICC  Prosecutor has tackled nine cases in Africa alone,: Liberia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Uganda; the Central African Republic; Darfur, Sudan; the Republic of Kenya; the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire and Mali.In the cases of , Kenya and Côte d'Ivoire the ICC Prosecutor took it upon himself to refer the cases.

Many African leaders, as well as the AU as a body, have claimed the ICC unfairly targets Africans, while ignoring war crimes suspects in other parts of the world.

The Hague-based court, set up in 2002 to try the world's worst crimes, maintained it was not targeting Africa as a continent, pointing out that four out of eight situations under investigation in Africa were referred to the court by the countries themselves.

It is the first time the pan-African body has formally moved against the international court, even though Kenyatta is the second African leader to face trial, after genocide charges were brought against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.

The ICC resolution was adopted by consensus, with only Botswana and The Gambia -- homeland of the ICC's new chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda -- expressing "reservations" about the move, AU security commissioner Ramtane Lamamra said.

At the summit meeting, leaders also tried to tackle conflict on the continent, including in volatile eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, tensions between Sudan and South Sudan, Islamist threats in Somalia, Mali and the Sahel region, and wider global security concerns.

The AU also announced it would set up an emergency military force to rapidly quell conflict on the continent, amid frustration that a planned peacekeeping force was still not operational after a decade.

The AU's "African Standby Brigade" to intervene in sudden crises -- a proposed force of 32,500 troops and civilians drawn from five regions of the continent -- has made little headway since preparations for it started a decade ago.

Although since 2002, the Office of the Prosecutor had received more than ten thousand communications about alleged crimes throughout the world, only those in Africa are being investigated or tried. 

Editorial

ALMOST LATE!

African heads of state meeting at the headquarters of the African union in Addis Ababa have taken a correct stand on the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

They rightly observed that more than 90 per cent of cases tried before the ICC have come from Africa.

This is in spite of the fact that horrendous crimes against humanity have been committed by western leaders in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Mali and Somalia.

The Insight agrees with the African leaders that the focus on Africa by the I.C.C. smacks of racism.

What is not clear is why the African leaders waited for so long before speaking out against an injustice.

Are Tony Blair, George Bush and Sarkozy any better than the African leaders who have been tried at the I.C.C?

The Insight urges all African Countries which have signed the Rome Treaty to withdraw their signatures to this disgraceful pact which has only led to the humiliation of the continent.

We welcome the concerns of the African leaders even though it came too late.

African Union: A Continent adrift?

The African Union headquarters complex in the capital Addis Ababa stands in stark contrast to its immediate surroundings.

The wide planetarium-like structure sitting comfortably attached to a 100-metre lightly glazed tower dominates the city’s skyline. Inside, the combined leadership of 54 nations gather in state of the art conference rooms to contemplate Africa’s future.

Outside the complex, taxi cabs jostle for parking space and pedestrians are questioned by security guards, while local residents navigate the grime and dust of urban life walking along narrow alleys.

The continental bloc might be celebrating 50 years on Saturday, but there is an unmistakable cynicism surrounding the nature and value of the union in meeting the needs of ordinary Africans. 

The AU plans to host commemorative celebrations at a reported cost of $1.3m, despite ongoing conflicts and insecurity in five countries across the continent, including Sudan, the eastern DRC and Mali.

Disarray still reigns in Guinea-Bissau, the Central African Republic and Madagascar. 

Moreover, despite recent economic growth across the continent, living conditions remain abysmal for many average people, with the UN’s signature index suggesting that 24 of the 25 countries at the bottom of the human development index are African.

These types of statistics compel critics to describe the AU as a talk shop, rudderless and crucially disconnected from African citizens like its predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU).

Change of focus

Joram Biswaro, Tanzania’s ambassador to Ethiopia, believes criticism of the AU is unfair and out of context. Despite its limitations as a continental bloc, the fact that Madagascar, CAR and Guinea-Bissau were banned from attending the summit for ongoing political irregularities signalled the AU was headed in the right direction, he said.

"Perhaps had it not been for this organisation, Africa might not have achieved what it has achieved … If you want to assess its performance, one should look at its charter,” Biswaro told Al Jazeera.

The original organisation, the OAU, built by 32 African nations originally on May 25, 1963, focused primarily on liberating countries on the continent from the grip of colonialism.

The OAU came under sever scrutiny for its inability to intervene in member states during times of strife, coups or government repression earning the name of "dictators' club" for upholding the interests of member country’s leadership above all else.

But since the formation of the AU in 2002, with a renewed focus on solving conflicts, engineering socio-economic development and improving governance, hard questions are being asked over the political will of the AU to reignite the lost dream of pan-Africanism.

During the Arab Spring of 2011, the AU was an anonymous spectator as a revolutionary fervour that was born in North Africa spread across the Middle East. The AU appeared to be particularly hamstrung in its response to the armed revolt against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. 

“The crisis in Libya was a very difficult time for the AU’s Peace and Security Council to reach an agreement,” reminisced Yemane Nagish, a political analyst at The Reporter Newspaper, in Addis Ababa.

It is this type of accountability, transparency and political will that needs to improve, says Ashebir Woldegeois, the chairperson of the Health, Labour and Social Affairs of the AU’s Pan-African Parliament.

Accountability issues

With 60 percent of its annual budget reportedly funded by overseas donors, it remains unclear how much political clout and independence the African Union can wield in reality.

Solomon Dersso, senior researcher at the Institute of Security Studies (ISS), says he has no issue with African countries partnering with outside groups to solve problems. Difficulties on the continent need to be viewed in proper context, he said, as some problems come from outside sources, rather than from within Africa. 

“The idea is not that only Africans should do it; the idea is that Africans should be at the centre for the search of solutions,” he told Al Jazeera.

Other observers wonder if ordinary Africans are actually at the forefront of the AU’s concerns. With so many Africans living in politically repressive regimes, like Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia and the Gambia with limitations on freedom of expression, and restrictions on opposition parties, the AU is not yet representative of the African people, critics say.

“Despite being home to several of the world’s worst performing countries in terms of respect for human rights, the region saw overall if uneven progress toward democratisation during the 1990s and the early 2000s,” Freedom House, a US think-tank, reported in regards to Sub-Saharan Africa.

While elections are being held regularly across the continent, these apparent gains towards a culture of democracy are sometimes little more than masterful con jobs.

Election issues

Votes are scheduled this year for fragile states like Zimbabwe and Madagascar, and scrutiny has fallen on the efforts of the African Union to be an honest broker for democracy. In the past, Human Rights Watch has slammed the AU as an organisation ostensibly created to support democracy and freedom but wary of grassroots social movements.

The AU, however, has not been aloof to the challenges posed by political repression on the continent. In 2007, the organisation adopted the Charter for Democracy, Elections and Governance to address a tendency towards authoritarian rule in some African countries.

Highlighting human rights, the rule of law, democratic elections and unconstitutional changes of government, the charter aims to "reinforce commitments to democracy, development and peace in Africa". There certainly is no faulting its intention but critics say commitment to the Charter has been poor.

Woldegeois, the parliamentary member, said the situation has improved, despite set-backs. "We are getting there, but many opposition parties in Africa are still immature; many are not willing to work hard in the villages, build their constituencies."

But other observers said the root problem of representation at the AU can be seen in the group's founding constitution.

“Compared to the United Nations charter which starts off with ‘We the people of the United Nations, the AU constitution starts off with ‘We the heads of the state and government," said Dersso, the researcher. "Make no mistake, this [the AU] is in many ways still a club of heads of state and government and not necessarily a body that truly represents the African people."

Young and restless 

Almost 65 per cent of Africans are below the age of 35, and many are uninterested in the traditional politics of patronage. The face of the continent has changed.

The new AU Commission Chairperson, Dr Nkhosozana Dlamini-Zuma, has vowed to frame the next five decades around the themes of African identity, integration, economic development and democratic governance, among others.

But without action, analysts warn the continual talk shops at summits can last only for so long.

“There is a great sense of empowerment on the part of the youth," Dersso said. "If the actions of leaders are not in sync... [then] these types of governments have no future in Africa."

As African leaders enjoy the pomp and ceremony in Addis Ababa this weekend, many outside its headquarters still believe the continental body is adrift from the aspirations of its people.

Source Al-Jazeera

ZOOMLION SPEAKS OUT NYEP/GYEEDA CONTRACT

Background

The National Youth Employment Programme now Ghana Youth Employment and Entrepreneurial Development Agency(GYEEDA) was introduced in the year 2006 by the government to among others, (1) offer employment to the Ghanaian youth, (2) offer requisite working experience to post-national service personnel, and (3) provide Ghanaian youth with employable skills.

The programme is even now more relevant than ever because according to the 20 11 World Bank country statistics, some 65 per cent of Ghanaian youths are unemployed, while the  Ghana Trades Union Congress (TUC) estimates that 250,000 youths are added yearly to the unemployed bracket.

WASTE AND SANITATION MODULE

The Waste and Sanitation module was conceptualized by Zoomlion Ghana Limited and presented to government for implementation. The module was introduced by NYEP in 2006. The primary objectives of the Waste and Sanitation Module are:

·         To contribute to the maintenance of clean public facilities and healthy households and thereby ensure availability of strong and healthy workforce for the country

·         To facilitate the selection, training and deployment of a dedicated corps of available and willing young men and women

·         To assist in the cleaning of garbage in specific areas

·         To assist in the beautification of districts and communities and through
that enable beneficiaries to earn income

The collaborative agencies are:

·         The Ministry of Youth and Sports

·         The National Youth Employment Programme now GYEEDA

·         Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development acting through the various MMDAs

• And the private sector partner, Zoomlion Ghana Limited

HOW ARE BENEFICIARIES SELECTED?

Under the implementation guidelines of the National Youth Employment Programme now GYEEDA, beneficiaries are selected based on the following criteria;

• Applicant must be a citizen of Ghana

• Applicant must be between the ages of 18 - 35

• Applicant must be medically and physically fit for the job

• Applicant must be resident of the beneficiary district community

·         Applicant must be registered with NYEP/GYEEDA in their respective districts

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF ZOOMLION'S CONTRACT WITH
GYEEDA, FORMERLY NYEP

As directed by the implementation guidelines, Zoomlion is in charge of implementation of the module.

2 Under this arrangement, the company does the following;

• Train beneficiaries on the operational and technical aspects of the job

• Supervise beneficiaries on the field while they work

• Provide logistics and equipment

• Store, maintain and replace logistics and equipment

• Submit regular quarterly reports to NYEP/GYEEDA

NYEP/GYEEDA'S ROLE UNDER THE CONTRACT?

Recruit and replace

ARE BENEFICIARIES GIVEN INSURANCE COVER?

Zoomlion pays the premium for health insurance to the beneficiaries under the National Health Insurance Scheme annually.

WHO DETERMINES 100 CEDIS ALLOWANCE FOR BENEFICIARIES?

The government determines the beneficiary allowances whilst Zoomlion negotiates its management service charge based on its expenditure for the successful implementation of the module.

It must be noted that between 2006 and 2011(a period of5 years), Zoomlion was paid the same amount as management fees despite inflation, rising cost of fuel and maintenance of its logistics

WHY ARE PAYMENTS TO BENEFICIARIES SOMETIMES IRREGULAR? Though this does not happen often, occasionally, salaries of beneficiaries delay for about a month or two. This occurs when payment from government to Zoomlion which is supposed to be quarterly are not paid. In recent times payments have delayed for between two and three quarters.

SOME BENEFICIARIES COMPLAIN THEY HAVE NO LOGISTICS SUCH AS BROOMS AND WHEEL BARROWS TO WORK WITH, WHY?

Our workers are grouped into teams with their leaders. Some of the logistics like brooms and personal protective clothing are given to individuals whilst others like shovels, wheelbarrows, cutlasses are assigned to teams.

Certain key logistics such as head pans, tricycles, shovels are given to teams not individuals to avoid situations of misuse and abuse after work.

Logistics that are giving to individuals include picking rods, sacks etc.

DO BENEFICIARIES WORK FULL DAY, SEVEN DAYS IN A WEEK?
HOW MANY HOURS DO THEY WORK PER DAY

Beneficiaries work four hours a day from Mondays to Saturdays. There is a shift system in place at certain areas (Central Business Districts) where a few go to work on Sundays. For instance Moslems are allowed not to go to work on Fridays, while they do their turn on Sundays. All workers who work on public holidays are paid over time.

SOME BENEFICIARIES SAY THEY ARE NOT SUPPLIED WITH PROTECTIVE CLOTHING SUCH AS NOSE MASKS AND HAND GLOVES?

These are supplied as the contract demands but sometimes beneficiaries complain about the uncomfortable nature of the protective clothing due to our hot weather conditions. We are constantly searching for better fabric for uniforms and safety boots etc to make life more comfortable for the beneficiaries.

HOW COME WORLD VISION HAD TO SUPPLY LOGISTICS TO BENEFICIARIES INSTEAD OF ZOOMLION?

We believe the World Vision donation was to a community and not to Zoomlion. No Zoomlion official has formally received any donation in terms of protective clothing from World Vision. There is nothing wrong if World Vision decides to donate to a community for clean up exercise that does not mean we are not up to our responsibilities.

 

DO BENEFICIARIES REPAIR TRICYCLES WITH THEIR OWN FUNDS?

Zoomlion has provided tricycle sheds in each of the districts for repair and maintenance. However, since some of the operators use the tricycles for their private door to door refuse collection, they decide to facilitate repairs by bearing the cost of repairing the tricycles used for their private businesses without the knowledge of the District Operations Supervisors.

THAT ZOOMLION DOES NOT SUPPLY FUEL FOR TRICYCLES?

Fuel is supplied to the operators of the motorised tricycles as and when it is needed. In recent times we have withdrawn motorised tricycles that require fuel and replaced them with Bola Taxis for efficient service delivery. For instance in the whole of Accra, we have only one motorised tricycle and a few nationwide.
All the rest of the tricycles are manual and do not require fuel to move.

WHY IS ZOOMLION ACCUSED OF CARRYING OUT RECRUITMENT INSTEAD OF GYEEDA COORDINATORS?

Recruitment is the sole preserve of MMDAs, GYEEDA coordinators. The recruitment is done by MMDAs coordinators of GYEEDA who identify unemployed people in the communities. These unemployed people are registered by them and brought to Zoomlion. 

Zoomlion then trains and equips them and together with the Environmental Health officers assign them to their various work places.

ARE BENEFICIARIES GIVEN TARGETS ON DAILY BASIS?

Beneficiaries are given targets daily. In areas where the refuse is enormous, they are put in groups to finish clearing specific areas.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE LOGISTICS SUPPLIED AND FREQUENCY OF REPLACEMENT?

Protective clothing (PPE) supplied include the following

• Nose masks

• Hand gloves

• Uniforms

• Safety boots

• Caps

Tools supplied to teams include the following;

• Shovels

·        Tricycles

·        Head pans

·        LangalangaJ cutlasses

·        Picking rods

·        Wheel barrows

·        Baskets

·        Rakes

• Pick axes

• Brooms

·        Alley brooms

·        Nylon sacks

·        Hoes

DO YOU WORK HAND IN HAND WITH THE GYEEDA OUTFIT?

Yes, Zoom lion works hand in hand with all its stakeholders. Stakeholders are the GYEEDA Head quarters, Regional and District Coordinators, MMDAs, District and Metropolitan Environmental Health Officers, District Cleansing Officers. Quarterly meetings are held with these stakeholders and quarterly reports are submitted at the National level. 

Our monthly reports at the Metropolitan, Municipal and District levels are certified by GYEEDA coordinators and environmental health officers.

ANY OTHER FORM OF ASSISTANCE THEY ENJOY THAT ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE CONTRACT?

Zoomlion on its own outside the contract provides essential welfare services including;

• Funeral packages for deceased beneficiary's families

• Christmas packages

·        In instances where beneficiaries have special health problems which are not covered under the NIDS, Zoomlion comes in to help. In recent times, Zoomlion has issued a cheque for over GHC 6,000 as medical bills for one GYEEDA beneficiary who has to undergo eye treatment.

Obama must be put on trial at ICC

US President Hussein Obama

Renowned American academic Noam Chomsky says US President Barack Obama, his predecessor George W. Bush along with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair should face trial for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the ensuing turmoil in the Arab state.

“Bush and Blair ought to be up there [at the International Criminal Court]. There is no recent crime worse than the invasion of Iraq. Obama’s got to be there for the terror war,” Chomsky told Russia Today on Thursday.

In 2003, the US and Britain invaded Iraq in a blatant violation of international law and under the pretext of finding weapons of mass destruction. But no such weapons were ever found in Iraq.

More than one million Iraqis were killed as the result of the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of the country, according to the California-based investigative organization Project Censored.

Chomsky, a prominent critic of the US foreign policy, said the invasion of Iraq is a “supreme international crime,” adding that the US and its allies were responsible for bomb attacks across Iraq.

“The US and British invasion of Iraq was a textbook example of aggression, no questions about it. Which means that we were responsible for all the evil that follows like the bombings. Serious conflict arose, it spread all over the region. In fact the region is being torn to shreds by this conflict. That is part of the evil that follows,” Chomsky stated.

He went on to slam Washington for its growing use of killer drones in a number of countries including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia, describing it as a “massive terror campaign.”

“A drone strike was a terror weapon; we do not talk about it that way. It is, just imagine you are walking down the street and you do not know whether in five minutes there is going to be an explosion across the street from some place up in the sky that you cannot see,” said Chomsky.

“Somebody will be killed, and whoever is around will be killed, maybe you will be injured if you are there. That is a terror weapon. It terrorizes villages, regions, huge areas. In fact it’s the most massive terror campaign going on by a long shot,” he added.

Washington uses killer drones in several countries, claiming that they target “terrorists”. According to witnesses, however, the attacks have mostly led to massive civilian casualties. 

What's your poison, Coke or Goldman Sachs? 

NATO Troops

By Colin Todhunter

Who in their right mind would be prepared to fight and die for Shell, Chevron or Coca Cola? Who with half a brain would choose to put their life on the line for Goldman Sachs, Bank of America or General Electric? Any volunteers? I'm guessing there wouldn't be many, if any.

Then again, I could be wrong. Think of the tens of thousands of NATO troops who over the last decade have been in Afghanistan or Iraq. Enticed by the potent aphrodisiac of nationalism and a military that sells life in the armed forces as resembling some computer game reality, young mainly working class men have lined up in their droves to put their lives on the line for their respective governments.

Allured by the glamour of armed forces' adverts that proclaim 'see the world' or 'learn a trade' in an era of severe economic downturn, when few poorer people have little chance of doing either, 'serving queen and country' (or some other nationalistic slogan) seems like a good option.  

  

This form of economic conscription has meant no shortage of young men signing up to fight wars in far away lands. Sold under the outright lie of 'protecting democracy', 'humanitarian intervention' or another apparent high-minded falsehood, thousands have gone off to kill and die and pledge allegiance to a 'greater good'.

But it's not the greater good of humankind, queen, flag or country that is at stake. Forget about blurry eyed nationalism or idealism. These young men are spilling their own blood and the blood of countless others on behalf of corporate interests.

Western 'liberal democracy' has nothing to do with empowering people and everything to do with enslaving them and making them blind to the chains that bind them. It is the powerful foundations and think tanks headed or funded by private corporations that drive US policies and its war agenda.

In his Global Research article 'Tipping the balance of power' ( 23 Sept '12), Tony Cartalucci highlights how, through their funding or by direct membership of various foundations, think tanks and government bodies, US domestic and foreign policies are formulated to serve corporate interests. It is the Brookings Institute, International Crisis Group and Council on Foreign Relations, among others, where the real heart of the US government lies. In Britain, Chatham House plays a similar role.

John Perkins' book 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' details how poorer countries have been neo-colonised by a cabal of US corporations, banks and government agencies. This is achieved via a combination of targeted assassinations, bribery, deceit and financial loans leading to debt dependency. If all of that fails, the troops are then sent in under the banner of 'humanitarianism' or protecting 'national security'. Corporate America has been the leading hand in virtually every US led conflict since 1945, from Guatemala in the 1950s right up to Syria today.

Who but a misinformed and brainwashed public would think for one minute that such corporations and their foundations, institutes and agencies would let ordinary folk have any say in policies that would adversely affect their power or enormous wealth? There is no way they will allow any genuine form of democracy that could disrupt their aims. What is required and achieved is an ignorant and misinformed public that places an X on a ballot form every four years in favour of competing corporate-sponsored politicians. A public that readily lines up to support the corporate war agenda, and a public from which a cannon fodder army of young men is recruited to die on the battlefields of Asia.

And as those young men are delivered to their families inside a wooden box or return home suffering from the long term effects of using weapons that contained depleted uranium, there can only be one thought among decent minded folk - 'what a waste.'

But young men being carted away in a body bag or suffering from life long illnesses means nothing to the men these wars are fought for. They are just 'collateral damage' in pursuit of the 'greater good'. Not the greater good of lofty idealism. But the corporate brand of 'greater good' - greed, resource grabs, ever more profits and ever more power.

The mainstream media glorifies the military at every available opportunity. Obama calls armed forces personnel 'the real patriots'. In Britain they are 'our brave lads'. Such rhetoric serves as a smokescreen to hide the true nature of the illegal, imperialist wars NATO continues to engage in.

For many, it seems strange that our 'brave heroes', our 'true patriots' who were sent out to kill, so often have to rely on charities when back from the battlefield to piece their health and lives back together again. Not so strange really because, behind the rhetoric, the reality is they are regarded by the wealthy beneficiaries of the war agenda as constituting disposable working class fodder who have no idea about what they are really fighting for..

Don't take my word for it. Henry Kissinger, the criminal responsible for scorching, torching, maiming and killing tens of thousands is reported in the book 'The Final Days' (Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein) to have referred to military men as "dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."  

  \