WELCOME  TO BREAKING NEWS

 

Africa is Wide Awake But Still Hungry

One of the most remarkable turn-arounds in development occurred in the last decade in many of the countries south of the Sahara. Economies have been growing even in the face of economic and financial instability elsewhere in the world; poverty has fallen and child mortality has dropped considerably, among the most visible indicators of progress. But the number of people suffering from undernourishment (a proxy for hunger) has kept rising. There are several reasons to be optimistic about Africa despite the fact that hunger remains pervasive. Sub-Saharan Africa is wide-awake, dynamic and on the move, but still hungry.

 

Secretary-General Ban strongly condemns rebel attacks in Central African Republic

27 December 2012 – Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has strongly condemned the armed attacks on several towns in the Central African Republic (CAR) perpetrated by the coalition of rebel groups known as ‘SELEKA,’ and called on all parties to refrain from acts of violence against civilians.

The rebels reportedly captured the northern city of Bambari on Sunday, having earlier seized the area around Bria, and are now said to be advancing toward the capital, Bangui.

“These developments gravely undermine the peace agreements in place and the efforts of the international community to consolidate peace in the Central African Republic,” Mr. Ban’s spokesperson said a statement issued on Wednesday night.

“The Secretary-General deeply regrets the loss of life and population displacement caused by the fighting,” the spokesperson added.

He further noted that Mr. Ban appealed to all parties to refrain from “any acts of violence against civilians, including sexual and gender-based violence,” and to ensure the protection of civilians and to respect human rights, in conformity with international instruments to which CAR is a party.

The UN chief also urged all parties to abide by the decisions of the Summit of the Heads of State of the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS), held in the Chadian capital of N’Djamena on 21 December, which provide a basis for a peaceful resolution of the dispute.

In addition, the Secretary-General reminded the CAR Government of its responsibility to ensure the safety and security of UN personnel and its premises. The world body is temporarily relocating dependents and non-essential staff amid the latest violence.

“The temporary relocation is a precautionary measure to reduce our presence in the event the security situation further deteriorates in Bangui,” said UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky. “The decision is temporary and will not detract from the ability of the United Nations to continue its support to the peace consolidation and development efforts in the Central African Republic.”

Meanwhile, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative and Head of the UN Integrated Peacebuilding Office in the CAR (BINUCA), Margaret Vogt, continues to engage the Government and the rebel leaders with a view to ensuring a ceasefire and initiating dialogue, as recommended by ECCAS on 21 December.

Earlier this month, Ms. Vogt condemned all violations of the 2008 peace accord which helped bring a degree of stability to CAR, which has a history of political instability and recurring armed conflict. State authority is weak in many parts of the country, which are largely controlled by rebel groups and criminal armed groups, according to the UN Department of Political Affairs (DPA).

BINUCA had played a key role in encouraging the signing of the so-called Libreville Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the Government and three main rebel groups, as well as the holding in December 2008 of the Inclusive Political Dialogue between the Government, rebel groups, the political opposition, civil society and other relevant stakeholders.

In yesterday’s statement, Mr. Ban confirmed the UN’s readiness to continue to support CAR in overcoming challenges to the consolidation of peace, in collaboration with regional and international partners.

Watchdog criticizes UK nuclear site emergency readiness

A report by a nuclear safety watchdog has revealed that the staff members at Sellfield station, Britain’s most important nuclear site, were not qualified enough to respond to nuclear emergencies.

The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), an arm of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), said errors by senior fire officers at the nuclear site "could have led to delays in responding to the nuclear emergency and a prolonged release of radioactive material off-site".

Fire specialists had watched a safety exercise in Sellafield in 2011, which tested the fire and rescue service’s ability to search for people after the fictional accident that led to the spillage of radioactive liquid and an aerial release of radioactivity.

“There were insufficient numbers of firefighters to achieve the objectives", the HSE reported.

The revelations by the report come at a critical time for the British nuclear industry, which is trying to build public trust after the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant while drawing up plans to build a new generation of atomic power stations in Britain, The Guardian reported.

In early December, British campaigners criticized EDF Energy, one of the largest UK home and business energy suppliers, for its “hazardous” decision to keep ageing nuclear power stations in use till 2023.

Coal companies exempted from public hearing for expansion

One-time hearing okay, says environment ministry

In a bid to increase coal production, the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has exempted coalmining companies from holding public hearings for expansion in mining activity. Public hearing is a prime requisite for environmental clearance. The companies would now need to hold public hearings only if they change their technology, for example, from open cast to underground mining, or increase the mining lease area, ministry officials say.
At present, companies need clearance from gram sabhas with 50 per cent attendance before expanding their activity. Public hearings were mandatory for all projects by Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification of 2006 for the grant of environmental clearance to companies. In August 2009, MoEF issued an order making it mandatory for all expansion projects to hold public hearings.
But in 2011, a committee under Planning Commission member B K Chaturvedi recommended simplification of the process by holding public hearing once, just before starting mining activity. Subsequent expansions, that did not have any change in the mining plans, could do without further public hearings, it suggested.
According to the notification, issued on December 20 by director (environmental clearance) Manoranjan Hota, the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) of MoEF will give approval for one-time capacity expansion for 25 per cent of the existing capacity within mine lease area. This is subject to a ceiling of 2 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) of additional production where transportation of additional production is by road and of 5 MTPA of additional production if production is proposed to be carried by a conveyor or railways.
For capacity expansion of mines located in critically polluted areas, EAC will examine the measures the coalmining company needs to implement under Environment Action Plan prepared by State Pollution Control Board. Further, EAC will decide on the grant of environmental clearance if there are any pending court cases or notices issued by the regional MoEF to the mining company that needs to expand its capacity.
Environmental activists have called the notification undemocratic. “Any change in the capacity of a mine impacts the ecology of the area. When mining activity increases, groundwater usage also increases. Overburden dumps choke up streams. Exemption of public hearing for capacity expansion of coalmines will overlook such activities,” says Ravi R Pragada, secretary general of Mines, Mineral and People, a non-profit working for mining affected people.
But MoEF disagrees. The move will not hamper local ecology because expansion is only for the mine’s capacity, not its lease area, a ministry official says. Further, if the mining company changes the mining method, it has to apply for a new environmental clearance which will attract a public hearing, he adds.

What future for free speech in the new Egypt?

As Egypt closes 2012 with the approval of a new constitution, Ashraf Khalil reflects on a tumultuous year, and looks ahead to an uncertain future

Under Hosni Mubarak, Egypt‘s press freedom and general freedom of expression were a convoluted issue at best. In theory the media was fairly free, but it was often impossible to set up an independent newspaper or get a television broadcast licence. The government couldn’t truly prevent the independent papers from printing something, but they could punish and intimidate them after the fact in multiple ways.
Well into the 21st century, it was forbidden to speak or write critically of Mubarak or his family. That taboo was eventually breached and Mubarak’s final years featured a parade of direct abuse from the opposition and independent press. But other barriers held firm. Every editor in the country could expect the occasional visit from the dreaded State Security Investigations agency. And they all knew that any mention of the military or Muslim-Christian tensions had to be dealt with very carefully to avoid the wrath of the government.
Nearly two years after the revolution that ousted Mubarak from power, the media scene is still something of a mixed bag. In some ways, being a journalist in post-revolutionary Egypt is even more complicated and treacherous than it ever was under Mubarak.

A media war in the new Egypt

As 2012 came to a close, the issue of public expression was particularly relevant, as the country’s main political factions seem destined to spend most of 2013 publicly screaming at each other.
Egypt’s public debate has become shrill and bitter as the country has split into deeply polarised camps: Islamists versus everybody else. President Mohammed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood allies have succeeded in forcing through a rushed and controversial constitution — a process that has burned almost all bridges with the largely secularist opposition.
This polarisation is reflected in the country’s media. As Egypt has broken into warring camps, much of the media has followed suit and taken sides — leaving very little in the way of objective journalism. At times different media outlets seem to be reporting from alternate universes. One classic example of this came on 23 December, the day after a nationwide referendum on the new constitution.
Al Ahram, the venerable state-owned flagship daily paper, proclaimed in a front-page headline: “The People Sided With Democracy.” Meanwhile, from across the ideological divide, Al Masry Al Youm — the largest independent daily and Al Ahram’s strongest competitor — covered the same event with the front page headline: “Wholesale Violations.”
The fall of Mubarak and the collapse of his regime’s many restrictions on the media have certainly led to an explosion of new media in Egypt. Immediately after Mubarak’s ousting, a wave of new newspapers and satellite television channels appeared, kicking off a raucous new era of freewheeling expression. Much of the independent media — including several major satellite channels—feature talk shows that are heavily anti-government and anti-Islamist.
We’ve seen the creation of new media stars such as Bassem Youssef — a heart surgeon by training who has become the Egyptian equivalent of Jon Stewart and the Daily Show. Youssef started out posting videos on YouTube in the midst of the revolution and immediately drew a huge audience. He now hosts a weekly show called Al Bernamig (The Programme) that has become essential viewing across the country.
In the realm of the state-owned media, the picture is far less encouraging. Critics charge — with some merit — that Morsi and his allies haven’t even tried to reform journalistic standards at state-owned newspapers and television channels; they’ve simply co-opted Mubarak’s old media machine for their own ends. State journalists — who were accustomed to dispensing Mubarak propaganda under the old regime — have smoothly shifted to dispensing Muslim Brotherhood propaganda under the new regime. This is less of a problem at newspapers such as Al-Ahram, which faces stiff competition from independent papers and whose readership is widely believed to be dwindling fast. But the dozens of state-owned television channels continue to hold tremendous sway over a population with a high rate of illiteracy.

Free expression under attack

The government has struggled to maintain a consistent policy on this newly liberated media. Despite proclamations of a new post-Mubarak era of freedom, prosecution of journalists has continued on-and-off since the revolution — both under Morsi and under the military government that immediately followed Mubarak. Most recently, prominent television talk show host Wael al-Ibrashy was interrogated for eight hours and released on LE100,000 bail (about GBP £10,000) on charges of insulting Egypt’s judiciary. And dozens of other journalists have been called in for questioning on similar grounds.
In August, firebrand anti-Islamist television host Tawfiq Okasha was arrested and the channel he owns shut down. His televised rants against Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood often verged on incitement to violence and the episode that landed him in jail featured Okasha stopping just short of personally threatening the president.
Aside from the occasional journalist prosecution, there’s a disturbing new trend emerging in the past few months: direct intimidation of and violence against journalists in Egypt. Hazem Abu Ismail — a charismatic ultraconservative Salafist preacher has repeatedly rallied his slightly fanatical followers (known locally as the Hazemoon) against journalists who criticise him. They recently held a noisy several day-long sit-in outside Media Production City — where many of the most popular satellite talk shows are broadcast — openly intimidating the hosts and station employees as they came to work. Even more disturbingly, Abu Ismail’s followers were alleged to have recently attacked the offices of a heavily anti-Islamist opposition newspaper with petrol bombs, though the preacher took to Facebook to deny any involvement.
It’s not just the Islamists who are targeting journalists they dislike. Egypt’s secularist protestors are guilty of the same crime. The anti-Islamist forces absolutely despise the Al-Jazeera satellite news channel, regarding it as completely biased towards the Brotherhood. That antipathy came to a head in late November during a string of violent protests in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. The anti-Islamist protestors firebombed a street-level studio of Al Jazeera Live Egypt — an offshoot Al Jazeera channel devoted to 24/7 Egypt news.
Earlier this year, we learned that there are limits to just how much freedom of expression the Egyptian public is willing to stomach. An amateurish YouTube video trailer for The Innocence Of Muslims, a film that insulted the life and legacy of the Prophet Muhammad touched of a week of angry protests outside the US embassy in Cairo. At one point, a small group of protestors invaded the embassy grounds and took down the US flag. The rage toward the makers of the film was understandable, but the anger directed at the US government was based on a widespread misunderstanding. Many of the protestors were angry at US President Barack Obama for “allowing” the film to be made and not immediately prosecuting those behind it. The protestors here simply didn’t understand or believe that blasphemy is not a crime in the United States and most of Europe.
Indeed there seems to be absolutely no sort of public appetite for that level of freedom of expression. A young and outspoken atheist activist named Alber Saber was arrested and eventually sentenced to three years in prison for allegedly promoting the offensive film on his Facebook page.

An uncertain future for free speech

The country’s new constitution — which was approved in late December by a 63.8 per cent vote in a national referendum — makes it clear that blasphemy will not be considered a freedom of expression issue. Article 44 of the constitution bluntly states that:
Defaming all religious messengers and prophets is prohibited.
But the constitution is far more murky when it comes to safeguarding the rights of journalists. Morsi and his supporters have hailed the document as enshrining unprecedented press freedoms. However an examination of the text reveals some potentially dangerous built-in loopholes to that freedom.
One article on freedom of the press clearly states:
The freedom of the press, printing, publication and mass media is guaranteed … The closure, prohibition or confiscation of media outlets is prohibited except with a court order.
But another article seems to open the door to a very broad interpretation of what exactly constitutes defamation and irresponsible public speech. Under the strangely-worded title of “Dignity and the prohibition against insults,” the article states:
Insulting or showing contempt toward any human being is prohibited.
Even in a healthy political environment, it’s impossible to imagine a free media functioning without somebody getting insulted or shown contempt. But given the absolutely toxic state of the modern Egyptian political playing field, this constitutional paradox seems likely to be tested almost immediately.