The Role of the United States in Southern Sudan’s Referendum

On January 9, southern Sudanese voted for their independence from the government in Khartoum. In the days leading up to the referendum, the international community feared delay, bloodshed, or the complete breakdown of the peace process. Few expected the referendum to take place on time and as peacefully as it did.

While Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has recognized the outcome, Southern Sudan’s relationship with Khartoum is volatile, and many issues remain unresolved. The United States has played a crucial role in the peace process and should continue a high level of engagement in the future. This includes assisting Juba in the areas of development, holding the government in the South to high governing standards, and closely monitoring actions in the North.

A Country Divided

Since gaining independence from Great Britain in 1956, Sudan has suffered nearly constant conflict. Violent clashes between the armed forces of Sudan’s government in Khartoum and rebel groups in the south are believed to have resulted in the loss of 2 million southern Sudanese lives. Since seizing office in 1989, Bashir has been responsible for the extreme marginalization of southern Sudanese, giving preferential treatment to northerners in areas such as education, employment, and housing. Furthermore, the U.S. has accused Bashir of genocide in the western region of Darfur.

With assistance from the international community and strong backing from the U.S., the government of Sudan and the Sudan’s People Liberation Movement/Army officially ended the civil war with the signing of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), in which the U.S. played a lead role.

January’s referendum on southern independence is the most recent and one of the last phases in the peace process. Also mandated by the CPA is a referendum determining the legal geographic status of the Abyei region on the border between northern and southern Sudan. This was supposed to take place at the same time as the referendum on southern independence, but owing to disagreements on voter eligibility, the Abyei referendum was postponed.

After initially taking less interest in Sudan than his predecessor, President Obama embraced the referendum process in September 2010. At the United Nations, he strongly urged the referendum to proceed as planned. Since then, the Administration has increased its engagement with both the North and South governments and has pledged to work closely with both in the future. One of the methods employed by the Administration, according U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan Scott Gration, is offering “cookies and gold stars”[1] to the government in Khartoum in return for its cooperation in the referendum process.

Despite Khartoum’s unreliable track record at the negotiating table and its possible support of terrorist organizations, President Obama has proposed resuming diplomatic relations with the North and removing it from the state sponsors of terrorism list.

Remaining Challenges

After 99 percent of southern Sudanese voted for independence in the referendum, jubilation quickly spread across the south. However, many challenges remain, including the tackling of such divisive issues as oil revenue sharing, citizenship, and apportioning Sudan’s debt. Southern Sudan must also overcome the challenges of poverty and poor infrastructure.

The most difficult of these challenges will be determining the how the two countries will work together to share Sudan’s oil wealth. This drives conflicts in the oil-rich region of Aybei as well as five additional disputed oil regions along the North–South border. The Northern economy is heavily dependent on the Southern oil supply, and Khartoum is determined to maintain control of as much of the oil wealth as possible. This puts Juba in a difficult position, as it is in danger of losing precious revenue needed for development. For its part, the South has little choice but to use pipelines that traverse the North if it wishes to sell its oil—a weakness that Khartoum is sure to use to its advantage.

To make a complicated situation even worse, the Southern government recently suspended oil negotiations with Khartoum. Southern Sudanese President Salva Kiir accused the North of funding militias that have escalated violence in Abyei and Upper Nile. Juba is now looking to alternative measures, such as halting the export of oil and establishing different transport routes, which could take years to build.[2]

The Road to Independence

Sudan’s many challenges underscore the significant role the U.S. must play in the peace process. The Administration is working with Juba and Khartoum to ensure that the South develops the capacity to become an independent state and that the North does not seek to undermine the South’s pursuit of self-determination.

In order to achieve this, the Obama Administration should take the following steps:

• Assist development of the South. Without broad international assistance and steady oil revenue, Southern Sudan could easily devolve into a failed state. The U.S. should seek to address Southern Sudan’s daunting infrastructure and development challenges. More important, the U.S. should focus on helping Southern Sudanese to be self-sufficient, particularly in agriculture, thus boosting long-term prospects for sustainable economic and social development.
• Hold Juba accountable for good governance. The U.S. should hold the government of Southern Sudan to standards that embrace democracy and human rights. Many African rebel movements fail to uphold democratic standards of governance once they are in power. Juba must not be given any free passes by the U.S. or the international community.
• Keep eyes on Khartoum. Washington should ensure that Khartoum negotiates with Juba in good faith and does not manipulate the negotiation process through stalling tactics, as it has repeatedly done in the past. The Obama Administration should also press Khartoum to end violence in Darfur and work to rebuild the region.
• Assist in writing constitutions for the North and the South. According to the CPA, new constitutions will need to be written in both the North and the South. The U.S. and the international community should assist in shaping both so that they embrace representative, accountable government and protect basic human rights.
• Reevaluate incentives offered to the North. The Obama Administration has offered a number of incentives to Khartoum for its cooperation in the peace process, including the removal of Sudan from the state sponsors of terrorism list. This is a hasty and presumptuous offer, considering that it is not certain whether Khartoum has ended its support for the Lord’s Resistance Army.[3]

Starting Out on the Right Foot

On July 9, the interim period for Southern Sudan will come to a close and a new country will be born. There is much to do in the way of addressing the unresolved issues and even less time to do it. The U.S. should continue its leadership and urge the international community to take part in ensuring that the world’s newest country starts out on the right foot.

Morgan L. Roach is a Research Associate in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, and Ray Walser, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Davis Institute, at The Heritage Foundation. The authors are grateful to Brett Schaefer, Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Thatcher Center, for his assistance in preparing this paper.

Source :  
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/03/The-Role-of-the-United-States-in-Southern-Sudans-Referendum

China’s Guantanamo Bay For Buddhist Monks of Kirti

 

All right-thinking persons of the world have spoken for a decade against the military detention centre set up by the US in the Guantanamo Bay area of Cuba for detaining and interrogating all Al Qaeda suspects arrested in different parts of the world. There have been many views on the legitimacy of this centre. There have been many criticisms of its inhumanity.

2. No one is talking of the new Guantanamo Bay type military detention centre which has reportedly been set up by the Chinese authorities under the supervision of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to interrogate and subject to so-called legal education an estimated 300 Buddhist monks— young and old.

3. They are not Al Qaeda suspects. They are not terrorism suspects. They are not ordinary criminals who have committed murder, rape or any other common law crime.

4. They are just religious people who have remained steadfast in their adherence to the Buddhist religion and in their support and loyalty to his Holiness the Dalai Lama. Their only crime was to refuse to eat in solidarity with a 16-year-old monk who committed self-immolation on March 16 last to protest against the Chinese colonisation of Tibet. He belonged to the famous Kirti monastery in the Aba County in the Aba Tibetan-Qiang Autonomous Prefecture of the Sichuan province.

5. Since then, the Chinese authorities of the Ministry of Public Security have started a demonization campaign against 300 monks of the monastery who expressed their solidarity with the young monk. They have been accused of various petty crimes such as visiting prostitutes or inviting prostitutes into the monastery.

6. Initially, the Chinese authorities had them confined in the monastery, reduced their daily rations and forced them to attend so-called re-education classes. When they could not break the protest movement of the monks, they reportedly shifted them to a special military detention centre that they have set up in the Sichuan province.

7. At least so long as they were detained in the monastery itself, the world was getting some news of them, but since they were shifted to the military detention centre the flow of information has come down. International human rights activists have been treating these monks as missing persons and asking the Chinese for more information on them. They are demanding that human rights activists should be allowed to visit the detention centre and meet the monks. The Chinese have refused to allow any humanitarian visit as provided for under international humanitarian laws.

8. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei claimed on June 8 that there had been no “enforced disappearances” at the Kirti monastery. He said the local authorities had taken some monks for “legal education”.

9.The same day, UN officials asked China for details of the whereabouts of the monks. “We encourage the authorities to undertake full investigations into the ongoing practice of enforced disappearances,” said a statement from the UN’s working group on enforced disappearances.

10.But in his weekly news conference, Mr Hong told journalists that no such thing was happening in the monastery. “The relevant local authorities are conducting legal education for the Kirti monastery monks in order to maintain religious order there. There was no question of forced disappearances,” he said. Mr Hong added that “relevant organisations” should “abandon bias and be objective and fair”.

11. In the meanwhile, there are indications that the protest movement by the monks has spread to the Kardze (in Chinese, Ganzi) region, including Kardze town. No details are available.

12. The Chinese authorities have imposed such an effective control on the use of the Internet by the Tibetans that much information is not coming out through micro-blogging. While the rest of the world is benefiting from the relaxation of restrictions and the greater transparency as a result of the Jasmine Revolution sweeping across West Asia and Africa, the Chinese have denied these benefits to the Tibetans and their monks. They have sought to crush the Tibetan jasmine even before it can bloom.

13. It is time for the world to raise its voice and demand more information on the Chinese military detention centre and its Buddhist inmates.

HIV/AIDS and Human Rights

HIV continues to spread throughout the world, shadowed by increasing challenges to human rights, at both national and global levels. The virus continues to be marked by discrimination against population groups: those who live on the fringes of society or who are assumed to be at risk of infection because of behaviors, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or social characteristics that are stigmatized in a particular society. In most of the world, discrimination also jeopardizes equitable distribution of access to HIV-related goods for prevention and care, including drugs necessary for HIV/AIDS care and the development of vaccines to respond to the specific needs of all populations, in both the North and South. As the number of people living with HIV and with AIDS continues to grow in nations with different economies, social structures, and legal systems, HIV/AIDS-related human rights issues are not only becoming more apparent, but also becoming increasingly diverse.

This chapter begins by examining the focus during the 1980s on the human rights of people living with HIV/AIDS, which shaped the initial understanding of the AIDS and human rights relationship. It analyzes how this focus led to recognition of the applicability of international law to HIV/AIDS and from there to increased understanding of the importance of human rights as a factor in determining people's vulnerability to HIV infection. The chapter then outlines a framework for analyzing human rights and HIV/AIDS, centered on the concept of vulnerability. The final section focuses on the specific human rights responsibilities of governments in the context of HIV/AIDS and includes a framework for monitoring government action.

Recognition of the Relationship Between Human Rights and HIV/AIDS transparent image
In the 1980s, the relationship between HIV/AIDS and human rights was only understood as it involved people infected with HIV and with AIDS and the discrimination to which they were subjected.(1) For HIV-infected people and people with AIDS, the concerns included mandatory HIV testing; restrictions on international travel; barriers to employment and housing, access to education, medical care, and/or health insurance; and the many issues raised by names reporting, partner notification, and confidentiality. These issues are grave, and almost 20 years into the epidemic, they have not been resolved. In some ways, the situation has become even more complicated, as old issues appear in new places or present themselves in new or different ways. For example, in certain settings, access to employment has continued to be routinely denied to people infected with HIV. Even in places where this situation has improved, HIV-infected individuals now run the risk of finding themselves excluded from workplace health insurance schemes, with considerable impact on their health and, therefore, on their capacity to work. There are also new issues, with tremendous human rights implications, that have been raised for HIV-infected people, in particular the large and growing disparities and inequities regarding access to antiretroviral therapies and other forms of care.(2)

The 1980s were extremely important in defining some of the connections between HIV/AIDS and human rights. By the end of the decade, the call for human rights and for compassion and solidarity with people living with HIV/AIDS had been explicitly embodied in the first WHO global response to AIDS.(3) This approach was motivated by moral outrage but also by the recognition that protection of human rights was a necessary element of a worldwide public-health response to the emerging epidemic.

The implications of this call were far-reaching. By framing this public health strategy in human rights terms, it became anchored in international law, thereby making governments and intergovernmental organizations publicly accountable for their actions toward people living with HIV/AIDS. The groundbreaking contribution of this era lies in the recognition of the applicability of international law to HIV/AIDS-and therefore to the ultimate responsibility and accountability of the state under international law for issues relating to health and well-being.(4)

What Are Human Rights?
Human rights are broadly concerned with defining the relationship between individuals and the state. International human rights law dictates that governments should not do things such as torture people, imprison them arbitrarily, or invade their privacy. Governments should, however, ensure that all people in a society have shelter, food, medical care, and basic education. The concept of human rights has a long history, but the modern human rights movement dates back about 50 years to when the promotion of human rights was set out as one of the purposes and principles of the newly created United Nations.

The key human rights document and the cornerstone of the modern human rights movement is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It is a common aspirational document, by and for governments, about what rights should exist for all people everywhere. The UDHR was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on December 10, 1948. A number of international human rights treaties exist that further elaborate the rights set out in the UDHR, including:

    the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
    the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
    the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
    the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
    the Convention on the Rights of the Child

Each of these documents lays out legally binding obligations for the governments that sign on to them. Countries that become party to international human rights treaties accept certain procedures and responsibilities, including periodic submission of reports on their compliance with the substantive provisions of the texts to international monitoring bodies.

Health and government responsibility for health in the context of the HIV/AIDS epidemics is codified in these documents in several ways. In almost all of them, the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health appears in some form. Even more importantly, nearly every article of every document has clear implications for health and for HIV/AIDS. Everything from the rights to information and association to the rights to social security or to the benefits of scientific progress and its applications has clear implications for HIV/AIDS and for the work of public health.

Conceptual Framework: Interaction between HIV/AIDS and Human Rights
The strong focus in the 1980s on the human rights of people living with HIV/AIDS also helped lead to increased understanding in the 1990s of the importance of human rights as a factor in determining people's vulnerability to HIV infection and their consequent risk of acquiring HIV infection as well the probability of their accessing appropriate care and support.(5) The interaction between HIV/AIDS and human rights is most often illustrated through the impact on the lives of individuals of neglect, denial, and violation of their rights in the context of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. This applies, albeit in different ways, to women, men, and children infected with, affected by, and vulnerable to HIV.

People infected with HIV may suffer from violations of their rights when, for example, they face government-condoned marginalization and discrimination in relation to access to health, education, and social services.(6) In this context, the realization of rights by people living with HIV would require nondiscriminatory access within a supportive social environment.

People are affected by HIV/AIDS when their close or extended families, their communities and, more broadly, the structures and services that exist for their benefit are strained by the consequences of the pandemic and as a result fail to provide them with the support and services they need. These effects of the HIV epidemic on people's lives may be compounded by marginalization and stigmatization on the basis of such attributes as race, migrant status, behaviors, or kinship that may be perceived as risk factors for HIV infection. Neglect or violation of the rights of people affected by HIV may include restricted or denied access to health services, education, and social programs.(7) People affected by HIV may progress toward the realization of their rights and better health if the enabling conditions exist to alleviate the impacts of personal, societal, and programmatic issues on their lives. This requires policies and programs designed to extend support and services to affected families and communities. Children orphaned by HIV/AIDS illustrate this need.

Vulnerability to HIV is the lack of power of individuals and communities to minimize or modulate their risk of exposure to HIV infection and, once infected, to receive adequate care and support. Even in populations where HIV has not spread widely, some individuals may be more vulnerable than others with regard to HIV. For example, gender and/or economic inequality may force a monogamous woman to engage in unprotected sex with her spouse, even if he is engaging in sex with others. Adolescent girls and boys may be vulnerable to HIV by being denied access to preventive information, education, and services. A truck driver's vulnerability to HIV may be exacerbated by peer pressure to engage in multiple unprotected sexual encounters. Sex workers may have greater vulnerability to HIV if they cannot access services to prevent, diagnose, and treat sexually transmitted infections, particularly if they are afraid to come forward because of the stigma associated with their occupation. Vulnerability is heightened by the denial of such rights as the rights to information, education, association, or essential care. To reduce vulnerability requires actions that enable individuals and communities to make and effectuate choices in their lives and thereby effectively modulate the health risks to which they may be exposed.

The effects of discrimination--particularly in the forms of racism, gender-based discrimination, and homophobia--continue to exacerbate the impact of the pandemic on the lives of individuals and populations around the world. It is increasingly recognized that realization of human rights is critical to protecting the rights and dignity of those infected and affected by HIV/AIDS, and to decreasing the relative vulnerability of individuals and communities.

Government Responsibilities for Human Rights in the Context of HIV/AIDS
As discussed above, with the applicability of international law to HIV/AIDS, governments are publicly accountable for their actions toward people in the context of HIV/AIDS. Given the reality of violations that continue to occur, it is useful to consider the specific human rights responsibilities of governments. Governments are responsible for not violating rights directly, as well as for ensuring the conditions that enable people to realize their rights as fully as possible. It is understood that, for every human right, governments have responsibilities at three levels:

    they must respect the right
    they must protect the right
    they must fulfill the right(8)

As an illustration, consider governmental obligations in the context of HIV, using one right--the right to education:

Respecting the right means that states cannot violate the right directly. This means that the right to education is violated if children are barred from attending school on the basis of their HIV status.

Protecting the right means a state has to prevent violations of rights by nonstate actors and offer some sort of redress that people know about and have access to if a violation does occur. A state has to ensure, for example, that religious groups are not successful when they try to stop adolescents from accessing reproductive health education.

Fulfilling the right means states have to take all appropriate measures-legislative, administrative, budgetary, judicial, and otherwise-toward fulfilling the right. If a state fails to provide essential HIV/AIDS prevention education in enough languages and media to be accessible to everyone in the population, this in and of itself could be understood to be a violation of the right to education.

In most countries, resource and other constraints can render it impossible for a government to fulfill all rights immediately and completely. The mechanisms responsible for monitoring governmental compliance with human rights obligations recognize that, in practical terms, a commitment to the right to basic education will require more than just passing a law. It will require financial resources, trained personnel, facilities, textbooks, and a sustainable infrastructure. Therefore, realization of rights is generally understood as making steady progress toward a goal. This principle of "progressive realization" is fundamental to the achievement of human rights. It is critical for resource-poor countries, which are responsible for striving toward human rights goals to the maximum extent possible; however, it is also important because it imposes an obligation on wealthier countries to engage in international assistance and cooperation.(9) In addition, as member states of intergovernmental and multilateral institutions, governments can be challenged to account for the impact of the actions of these institutions on health and development.

Despite the importance attached to human rights, there are situations where it is considered legitimate to restrict rights to achieve a broader public good. As described in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the public good can take precedence to "secure due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others; meet the just requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare; and in times of emergency, when there are threats to the vital interests of the nation."(10)

Public health is one such recognized public good.(11) Traditional public health measures have generally focused on curbing the spread of disease by imposing restrictions on the rights of those already infected or considered most vulnerable to becoming infected. Coercion, compulsion, and restriction have historically been significant components of public health measures.(12) Although the restrictions on rights that have occurred in the context of public health have generally had as their first concern protection of the public's health, the measures taken have often been excessive. Interference with freedom of movement when instituting quarantine or isolation for a serious communicable disease--for example, Ebola fever, syphilis, typhoid, or untreated tuberculosis--is an example of a restriction on rights that may in some circumstances be necessary for the public good and therefore could be considered legitimate under international human rights law. However, arbitrary measures taken by public health authorities that fail to consider other valid alternatives may be abusive of both human rights principles and public health "best practice." There are countless examples from around the world of this sort of abuse in the context of HIV/AIDS.(13)

Certain rights are absolute, which means that restrictions may never be placed on them, even if justified as necessary for the public good. These include such rights as the right to be free from torture, slavery, or servitude; the right to a fair trial; and the right to freedom of thought.(14) Interference with most rights can be legitimately justified as necessary under narrowly defined circumstances.(15) Limitations on rights, however, are considered a serious issue under international human rights law, regardless of the apparent importance of the public good involved. When a government limits the exercise or enjoyment of a right, this action must be taken only as a last resort and will only be considered legitimate if the following criteria are met:

    The restriction is provided for and carried out in accordance with the law.
    The restriction is in the interest of a legitimate objective of general interest.
    The restriction is strictly necessary in a democratic society to achieve the objective.
    There are no less intrusive and restrictive means available to reach the same goal.
    The restriction is not imposed arbitrarily, ie, in an unreasonable or otherwise discriminatory manner.(16)

Whereas this approach has long been recognized by those concerned with human rights monitoring and implementation as relevant to analyzing a government's actions, it has also recently begun to be considered a useful tool in a number of places by those responsible within government for HIV/AIDS-related policies and programs.(17)

HIV/AIDS, Public Health, and Human Rights in Practice
Using human rights concepts, one can examine the extent to which governments are progressively respecting, protecting, and fulfilling their obligations for all rights-civil, political, economic, social, and cultural-and how these government actions influence patterns of infection and concomitant responses.(18) The following section presents a framework for monitoring government action.

Advocacy and Accountability
Governments are responsible for promoting and protecting both public health and human rights.(19) None of the international human rights treaties specifically mentions HIV or the rights of individuals in the context of HIV/AIDS, yet all the international human rights mechanisms responsible for monitoring government action have expressed their commitment to exploring the implications of HIV/AIDS for governmental obligations. This may be of critical importance for fusing HIV/AIDS and human rights in practical and concrete ways. For example, in the past several years, increasing attention has been paid to HIV/AIDS in government reporting regarding their human rights obligations. Of the six human rights treaty monitoring bodies, the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women have been the most active in both their questions and responses in relation to HIV/AIDS. All the human rights treaty-monitoring bodies have expressed general concern at the increasing rates of HIV infection and its impact on the lives of populations. In their interactions with some countries, these bodies have focused specifically on laws and policies that might increase rates of infection, such as the lack of health care facilities available to adolescents without parental consent. A primary focus has been the need for governments to use a human rights framework to enact strategies for HIV prevention realistically targeted to the needs of affected populations, including providing information and education, ensuring care and support for people living with HIV and with AIDS, and taking steps to reduce the social and economic consequences of the disease.

Resolutions of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and the 1998 International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights also provide advocates and policymakers with useful tools for helping to ensure increased attention to both HIV/AIDS and human rights.(20) In addition, governments have made political commitments at international conferences such as the U.N. International Conference on Population and Development, held in Cairo in 1994, and the U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995, stating their responsibility for ensuring the rights of individuals in the context of HIV/AIDS.(21) Although it may represent the lowest common denominator to which all countries could agree, the consensus document that was issued by the U.N. General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS in June 2001 may become a critically important document for advocacy and accountability in relation to HIV/AIDS and human rights.(22) Advocates and others interested in using these three political documents for policy and programmatic purposes may find them useful complements to other more technically explicit international policy and program guidance on promoting and protecting human rights in the context of HIV/AIDS.

Human Rights in HIV/AIDS Policy and Program Design
Human rights are governmental obligations toward individuals; because these obligations include the protection of public health, they are relevant to the design, implementation, and evaluation of health policies and programs.(23) Based on these obligations, governments can be understood as legally responsible for instituting policies and programs that can reduce the spread and impact of HIV/AIDS. However the respect, protection, and fulfillment of all human rights--civil, political, economic, social, and cultural--are necessary not only because they are the binding legal obligations of governments but also because they are critical to an effective response. Examining public health through a human rights lens involves looking not only at the technical and operational aspects of public health interventions but also at the civil, political, economic, social, and cultural factors that surround them. These factors may include, for example, gender relations, religious beliefs, homophobia, or racism. Individually and in synergy, these factors may influence the extent to which individuals and communities are able to access services or make and effectuate free and informed decisions about their lives--and, therefore, may influence the extent of their vulnerability to HIV/AIDS, including accessing needed care and support once infected with HIV.(24) Thus, recognizing human rights in the design, implementation, and evaluation of health policies and programs can help shape more effective action.

HIV/AIDS policies and programs can be improved by a systematic review of how and to what extent interventions are both respectful of human rights and of benefit to public health. The questions described in the box below can be used by policymakers and public health and other government officials to aid in the development, implementation, and evaluation of more effective HIV/AIDS policies and programs; they can also be used by nongovernmental organizations and other concerned actors as an advocacy tool to hold governments accountable vis-à-vis compliance with their international legal obligations to promote and protect both public health and human rights.

The following questions are intended only to serve as a starting point:(25) 

• What is the specific intended purpose of the policy or program?
• What are the ways and the extent to which the policy or program may have an impact--positively and negatively--on public health?
• Using international human rights documents for guidance, what and whose rights are affected positively and negatively by the policy or the program?
• Does the policy or program necessitate the restriction of human rights?
• If so, have the criteria/preconditions been met?Are the health and other relevant structures and services capable of effectively implementing the policy or program?
• What steps are being taken to progress toward the optimal synergy between the promotion and protection of health and rights in relation to the issue?
• What system of monitoring, evaluation, accountability, and redress exists to ensure that the policy or program is progressing toward the intended effect and that adverse effects are addressed?

 

A Framework for Action
An agenda for action can be created by recognizing the convergence of the three situations in which people live in a world with HIV/AIDS--infected, affected, and vulnerable--and the three levels of government obligations that exist for every right-respect, protect, and fulfill. This approach has the power to bring about the incorporation of human rights promotion and protection into the diversity of responses designed to control the pandemic and mitigate its impact. Table 1 summarizes the three situations and three levels of obligation that should be considered by governments and other actors when identifying the specific needs and related rights of individuals in the context of HIV/AIDS.

ConclusionPeople living with HIV/AIDS, their friends and relatives, their communities, national and international policy- and decisionmakers, health professionals, and the public at large all, to varying degrees, understand the fundamental linkages between HIV/AIDS and human rights. The importance of bringing HIV/AIDS policies and programs in line with international human rights law is generally acknowledged but, unfortunately, rarely carried out in reality. Policymakers, program managers, and service providers must become more comfortable using human rights norms and standards to guide and limit the actions taken by or on behalf of governments in all matters affecting the response to HIV/AIDS. This requires genuine attention to building their capacity to recognize and promote the synergy between health and human rights and to appreciate more fully the potential gains when health interventions are guided by human rights principles. Those involved in HIV/AIDS advocacy must become more familiar with the practicalities of genuinely using international human rights law when they strive to hold governments accountable. For human rights to remain relevant to legal and policy work in HIV/AIDS, the contact between the conceptual work being done on the linkage between HIV/AIDS and human rights and the realities faced by those working in advocacy and in policy and program design must be ongoing; it is the mutually supportive--although occasionally mutually challenging--interaction between these groups that will help keep this work vital and useful.

Finally, concern with the events of September 11, 2001, and its aftermath has begun to threaten recent commitments to HIV/AIDS by the U.S. government and other donor countries. It is critical that these crises not be pitted against one another in the context of public opinion and discourse, political and legal commitments, or the allocation of financial and technical resources. To control the HIV/AIDS pandemic and mitigate its impact require action not only within a country's own borders but also in line with international human rights obligations through its engagement in international assistance and cooperation. Sustained commitment is critical to the future of the HIV/AIDS epidemics in the United States and around the world.
 

References

1. World Health Organization, World Health Assembly, Avoidance of Discrimination Against HIV-Infected Persons and Persons with AIDS, preamble, resolution WHA41.24 (May 13, 1988).

2. See, for example, Statement from the community AIDS movement in Africa, presented at the meeting on the international partnership against HIV/AIDS in Africa, New York, UN Headquarters, December 6-7, 1999.

3. World Health Organization, World Health Assembly, Resolution WHA 40.26, Global Strategy for the Prevention and Control of AIDS, Geneva, WHO, 5 May 1987.

4. Mann J, Gostin L, Gruskin S, et al. Health and human rights. Health and Human Rights 1994;1(1):6-23.

5. D Tarantola. Risk and vulnerability reduction in the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Current Issues in Public Health 1995;1:176-9; S Gruskin, D Tarantola. HIV/AIDS, Health and Human Rights. In: P Lamptey, H Gayle, P Mane, (eds). HIV/AIDS Prevention and Care Programs in Resource-Constrained Settings: A Handbook for the Design and Management of Programs. Arlington, Virginia: Family Health International, 2000.

6. Human Rights Internet. Human rights and HIV/AIDS: effective community responses. Ottawa: International Human Rights Documentation Network, 1998. R Cohen, L Wiseberg. Double jeopardy-threat to life and human rights: discrimination against persons with AIDS. Cambridge, MA: Human Rights Internet, 1990.
 

7. S Gruskin, A Wakhweya. A human rights perspective on HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. In: M Laga, K De Cock, N Kaleeba, S Mboup, D Tarantola (eds). AIDS in Africa, 2nd edition. London: Rapid Science Publisher, 1997:S159-S167. S Hunter, J Williamson. Developing Strategies and Policies for Support of HIV/AIDS Infected and Affected Children. Washington: USAID, 1997.
 

8. A Eide, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as Human Rights. In: A Eide, C Krause, A Rosas, (eds). Economic, social and cultural rights: a Textbook. Dordrecht: Martinus. Nijhoff, 1995, at 21-40.

9. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI), U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., Supp. NO. 16, at 49, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), Article 2.
 

10. United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI), UN GAOR, 21st Sess., Supp. No. 16, at 49, UN Doc. A/6316 (1966).
 

11. The specific power of the state to restrict right in the state of public health can be understood to be derived from Article 12 (c) of the ICESCR, which gives governments the right to take the steps they deem necessary for the 'prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases.'

12. See, for example, Smith, S. (1911). The powers and duties of the board of health. Social Diseases, 2(3), 9; Schmidt, T.A. (1995). When public health competes with individual needs. Academy of Emergency Medicine, 2, 217-22; Cohen, M.L. (1998). Resurgent and emergent disease in a changing world. British Medical Bulletin, 54(3), 523-32.

13. See, for example, Cohen, R., Wiseberg, L. (1990). Double jeopardy-threat to life and human rights: discrimination against persons with AIDS. Human Rights Internet, Cambridge, MA; United Nations (1992a). Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on Prevention and Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. Discrimination against HIV-infected people or people with AIDS. UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1992/10 (July 28, 1992); United Nations (1994). Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR). General Comment No. 5 (Eleventh Session). Persons with disabilities. UN Doc. E/C.12/1194/13; Human Rights Internet (1998). 'Human rights and HIV/AIDS: effective community responses.' International Human Rights Documentation Network, Ottawa.
 

14. See, for example, Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states in pertinent part that 'No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16, 18 may be made under this provision.'
 

15. See, for example, Article 4 of the ICCPR, which states in pertinent part, 'In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.'

16. United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) (1985). The Siracusa Principles on the limitations and derogation provisions in the international covenant on civil and political rights. UN Doc. E/CN.4/1985/4, Annex.
 

17. World Health Organization and the Joint United Nations Programme on AIDS (UNAIDS) (1999). Consultation on HIV/AIDS reporting and disclosure, Geneva, 20-22 October 1999.

18. S Gruskin. Human rights and public health: an overview. Canadian HIV/AIDS newsletter, 1999.

19. See, for example, World Health Assembly resolution 40.26 of 15 May 1987; General Assembly resolution 42/8 of 26 October 1987. Also see more recently World Health Assembly Resolution 54.10 of 21 May 2001, 'Scaling up the response to HIV/AIDS,' and UN Commission on Human Rights Resolutions 2001/51 of 24 April 2001; 1999/49 of 21 April 1999; 1997/33 of 11 April 1997; 1996/43 of 19 April 1996 and 1995/44 of 3 March 1995.

20. See, in particular, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Joint United Programme on HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS and human rights: international guidelines. UN Doc HR/PUB/98/1 (1998).

21. Gruskin S. The highest priority: making use of UN conference documents to remind governments of their commitments. Health and Human Rights 1998;3 (1):107-142.
 

22. UNAIDS, 'Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS: Global Crisis - Global Action,' United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS, New York, NY (2001).

23. S Gruskin, A Hendriks, K Tomasevski. Human rights and responses to HIV/AIDS. In: J Mann, D Tarantola (eds). AIDS in the World II. London: Oxford University Press, 1996:326-340. United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Non-Discrimination in the Field of Health, preamble, Resolution 1989/11 (March 2, 1989).

24. S Gruskin. Human rights and public health: an overview. Canadian HIV/AIDS newsletter, 1999.

25. International Federal of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and Francois-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights. The public health-human rights dialogue. In: AIDS, Health and Human Rights: an Explanatory Manual. Boston: 1995. WHO/UNAIDS. Partner Notification and Disclosure of HIV and/or AIDS Serostatus to Others. Geneva: June 1999.

Human Rights : Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and Health (HIV, AIDS)

In a significant development, the European Parliament (EP) has linked the Kashmir dispute with the signing of Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with India. According to a news (Source: The Nation, 14 June 2011), the para-33 of the resolution passed by the European Parliament on May 11, 2011, over the FTA between India and European Union, states that "Human rights, democracy and security are essential elements of the relationship between EU and India. Therefore we call on both the sides to ensure that dialogue on open issues is stepped up with particular reference to Kashmir".

• According to a recent UNDP report India has 30.5 million men-who-sex-with-men (MSM), and over a million Hijras, or transgenders. The national HIV prevalence amongst MSM is estimated at 7.41%, with 24% MSM testing positive for HIV in the state of Goa, and 18.8% in Mumbai. While MSM are at a high risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV, only about 4% of those at risk are currently able to access appropriate HIV services in India.

It is heartening to note that the EU is giving top priority to human rights, democracy and security in all its dealings, especially in relation to its Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with India. But why single out Kashmir? Surely this must be applicable to other countries as well, which are in the process of signing these agreements with the developed countries.

The Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS issued at the end of the recently concluded High Level Meeting on AIDS also reaffirms that "the full realization of all human rights for all is an essential element in the global response to the HIV epidemic, including in the areas of prevention, treatment, care and support”, and recognizes that “addressing stigma and discrimination against people living with, presumed to be living with HIV is also a critical element in combating the global HIV epidemic."

But then, human rights are applicable to human beings. If certain components of FTAs result in a systematic extermination of communities affected with HIV/AIDS or for that matter any other disease requiring prolonged and subsidized treatment, it would be the worst form of human rights violation - snatching away the right to live at all. This is no exaggeration, but a warning sign of the times to come, and warrants immediate action.

According to Sarah Zaidi Executive Director, International Treatment Preparedness Coalition (ITPC) Secretariat, "While patients in developed countries have treatment options, the same cannot be said for those in developing countries where 95% of the 33.3 million HIV-infected people worldwide, live. Most of these people will need to be treated with ARVs if they are to live healthy and productive lives. However, the main barrier for accessing treatment to better drugs is TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), as TRIPS patent protection has limited the competition for newer generic drugs and has impeded access to improved treatment options for HIV-infected persons in developing countries. Most of the newer drugs are protected by patents held by pharmaceutical companies and are unaffordable."

The Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS: Intensifying Our Efforts to Eliminate HIV and AIDS adopted by the General Assembly at the end of the recently concluded UN High Level Meeting on AIDS that brought together 3,000 participants, including 30 heads of State and government, to chart a path for the future of the AIDS response: "We recognize the critical importance of affordable medicines, including generics, in scaling up access to affordable HIV treatment; and further recognize that protection and enforcement measures for intellectual property rights should be compliant with Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of the right of Member States to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all; we also note with concern that regulations, policies and practices, including those that limit legitimate trade of generic medicines, may seriously limit access to affordable and good quality HIV treatment and other pharmaceutical products in low- and middle-income countries."

The HIV epidemic remains an unprecedented human catastrophe inflicting immense suffering on communities throughout the world, with more than 30 million people dying from AIDS, and another estimated 33 million people living with HIV. Also, over 7000 new HIV infections occur every day, mostly among people in low- and middle-income countries. Although providing access to anti retroviral (ARV) treatment to over 6 million people living with HIV in low and middle-income countries, and a more than 25 per cent drop in the rate of new HIV infections, coupled with over 20% reduction in AIDS-related deaths in the past five years can be taken as a major achievement, there are still at least 10 million people living with HIV who though medically-eligible, lack access to start on ARVs.

With evidence now available that FTAs do indeed adversely impact production and supply of generic medicines, the EU, and other developed countries would do well to support access to safe, effective and affordable generic medicines. They need to recognize the danger that FTAs pose to the sustainability of treatment of HIV/AIDS and other diseases. EU needs to allow governments to use public health safeguards when they face intellectual property (IP) barriers in producing or purchasing affordable medicines for HIV/AIDS, and also keep the TRIPS-plus provisions out of FTAs, instead of pushing their intellectual property agenda.

Then only would they become true human rights crusaders and have the moral right to hold to account other countries for human rights violations—whether it be Kashmir or elsewhere-- with the aim of the promoting universal respect for, and the observance and protection of, all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other instruments relating to human rights and international law.

Sudanese Military, Militias Kill Christians in South Kordofan

Two dead, two others tortured on day when at least three church buildings are attacked.

 

Military intelligence agents killed one Christian, and Islamic militants sympathetic to the government slaughtered another last week after attacking churches in Sudan’s embattled South Kordofan state.

Christian sources said a Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) Intelligence unit detained Nimeri Philip Kalo, a student at St. Paul Major Seminary, on June 8 near the gate of the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) in Kadugli’s al Shaeer area and shot him in front of bystanders. Kalo and other Christians were fleeing the town after Muslim militias loyal to the SAF attacked and looted at least three church buildings in Kadugli, they said.

UNMIS’s mandate is to support the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the Government of Sudan and the country’s Christian and animist south, scheduled to secede on July 9, by helping in the disarmament process, among other means. Armed conflict in Kadugli broke out between southern and northern militaries on June 6 after northern forces seized Abyei last month.

SAF military intelligence agents accused Kalo of being a Christian and suspected he was therefore opposed to the Islamic government, the sources said.

“They shot him in front of our eyes and forced us not to cry, or else we would face the same fate,” a Christian source told Compass on condition of anonymity. Likewise, another Christian survivor said while breaking into tears, “They killed him in front of my eyes.”

On the same day, Islamic militants loyal to the SAF slaughtered a young Christian man by sword in Kadugli Market, the sources said. Adeeb Gismalla Aksam, 33, a bus driver whose father is an elder with the Evangelical Church in Kadugli, was murdered by Muslim extremists shouting, “Allahu-akbar [God is greater]!”

The Islamic militias were heard shouting “Allahu-akbar!” as they began shooting at a Roman Catholic Church building at 3:30 p.m. on June 8, during a mass in which the congregants were asking God to protect them.

“As we were praying, they started to pour bullets at us to the point that we were terribly scared,” a Christian who escaped the attack told Compass.

No one was hit by the bullets shot at the building from the outside, but SAF agents on June 8 arrested the Rev. Abraham James Lual in front of his congregation, a priest of a Kadugli parish told Compass. Accusing Lual of preaching that people should oppose the Islamic government, authorities took him to an unknown location and tortured him two days, releasing him the following morning, the priest said.

The Rev. Paul Okeny, another Catholic priest, told Compass that Islamic militias loyal to the SAF looted other churches in Kadugli as well, besides attacking Lual’s church and depriving him of his belongings.

“Authorities confiscated all his belonging and denied him his cell phone,” Okeny told Compass.

Christians were in shock as they have become targets for Islamic militants working with the Government of Sudan, sources said.

Another Christian who requested anonymity said he was arrested at gunpoint by SAF military Intelligence agents at 8:30 a.m. on June 8. Accusing him of being anti-Islam and therefore opposed to the Islamic government, the security officers took him to a military jail, where he was severely beaten and “kicked like a ball,” he said.

According to the Christian, one high-ranking official told another, “Why shouldn’t you shoot him in his house so that his body gets rotten in his own house?” After taking him to his house, they started to torture him with sticks, guns and knives, saying, “We will kill you,” he said.

“I was praying to God to be with me and forgive them,” he told Compass. “I thought that was my end, but thank God I was released, but warned to quit the town. As I was running they opened fire on me, but the motorbike was running very fast, so no bullet hit me.”

They called after him, “Make sure we will not see your face again,” he added.

The SAF and Islamic militias on June 8 also set fire to buildings of the Episcopal Church of Sudan and the Sudanese Church of Christ in Kadugli, sources said.

“I saw a building of the Episcopal Church of Sudan in flames,” said one eyewitness.

The Rt. Rev. Bishop Andudu Adam Elnail of the Episcopal Diocese of Kadugli confirmed the incident.

“The churches and pastors were directly targeted,” he said. “The guesthouse in Kadugli, where my staff lives, was looted. The militias and SAF broke into the church building, taking all property, including the sound system, projector, beds, chairs and two motorbikes, including one of the bishop’s.”

On Sunday (June 12), North Kordofan Gov. Mutasim Mirghani Zaki El-deen declared jihad (holy war) on the Nuba people, most of whom are Christians.

Christians in the area said they are still traumatized as result of the atrocities committed against them by Sudan security forces and militias loyal to the government military. Sources in Sudan said Christians are calling their brothers and sisters worldwide to pray for the crisis in South Kordofan.
“The situation is critical – we need other Christians to fast and pray for us,” said one source.

Women are second grade people in Islam

Ayatollah Khomeini

In Islam, jihad is the best form of worship of Allah. What is jihad? Islamic jihad is the most barbaric incitement, the world has ever seen, to commit indiscriminate and large scale homicide. In plain words, jihad means indiscriminate killing of kafirs, plundering their wealth, occupying their land and other properties by sword, fire and rape. We should see what two prominent Muslim leaders have said about jihad.

It has been mentioned in an earlier article that to explain the ultimate aim of jihad, Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of Islamic Revolution in Iran said, “Jihad means the conquest of all non-Muslim territiries. Such a war may well be declared after the formation of an Islamic government worth of that name … It will then be the duty of every able-bodied adult male Moslem to volunteer for this war of conquest, the final aim of which is to put Koranic law in power from one end of the earth to the other. … We have no recourse other than to overthrow all governments that do not rest on pure Islamic principles. … That is not only our duty in Iran, but it is also the duty of all Moslems in the world, in all Muslim countries to carry the Islamic political revolution to its final victory.”  

It has also been mentioned that, to explain jihad, another Muslim leader Sheikh Ahmed Ismail Hassan Yassin, the founder of Hamas, said, “Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says, “Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! Sons of Islam everywhere, the jihad is a duty – to establish the rule of Allah on earth and to liberate your countries and yourselves from America’s domination and its Zionist allies, it is your battle – either victory or martyrdom.”  He has also claimed responsibility for a number of suicide attacks targeting Israeli civilians.

Ahmed Yassin

Most importantly, Islam does not have any program to turn its followers into an educated workforce for creating wealth. In Islam, Muslims are not supposed to create wealth, but they are to acquire it by launching jihad against the infidels, or in other words, by looting or plundering the wealth of the infidel kafirs. So, in reality, Islamc jihad is an economic enterprise. But due to their physical weakness and mental softness, it is not possible for the women to participate in cruel and brutal acts of jihad and due to this reason women in Islam have no importance in fiercely male dominated Muslim society. All the benefits are supposed to be enjoyed by men alone and women are to serve the males as slaves. Or in other words, their status is no better than domestic animals. They are just machines for satiation of the sexual lust of the males and breeding would be jihadis.

So, they must be covered by head to foot black burqas and forced to remain indoor so that light of wisdom may not reach them. They should be kept in total darkness so that they may not revolt against the severe male-domination and could be used like slaves or domestic animals. Mr Arlene Peck, in his article “Arab Men Treat Their Farm Animals Better Than Their Women”, writes, “The animals and woman do, however, have one thing in common: both are used for breeding. In the case of Islamic fundamentalists, women are used as breeding stock for future terrorists, or now, often, as suicide bombers. Come to think of it, goats and camels are treated better. They’re not forced to wear those hot and repressive burkas.” [1]

He also writes, “Women begin their lives under the control of a dysfunctional mind which demands that they submit to them in every way. … Hey, if a woman in that garden spot of the world, Saudi Arabia, isn’t allowed to vote, drive a car, or go out of her house without a man to control her movements, … Arab men can’t stand the thought that their women might be allowed sexual enjoyment. After all, they are only good for breeding. So, with this in mind, female children are subjected to genital mutilation, … Heaven forbid that an Arab woman ever has a relationship with another man or has been raped by her father, brother, cousin, etc. It would be the innocent girl’s fault and she would probably be killed for the sexual conduct forced upon her. Even the goats have it better. No one kills the goat to avenge anyone’s honor.   Tens of thousands more have been murdered in honor killings. …. Hell, I think pre-caveman? Cultural practices and overly patriarchal societies – which vary from one country to another – are what dictate a woman’s place in this region. Abuse and discrimination are rampant.”[1]

We see the Muslim scholars babble the lie day and night that, merciful Allah has given equal status for men and women. But according to Muslim law of inheritance, a daughter can only claim of her father’s property half of that allotted for the son. So, the Koran says, “Allah directs you in regard of your Children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females…. These are settled portions ordained by Allah.” (4: 11) Furthermore, the merit of the witness of a woman, in the court of law is simply the half of that of a man. So, the hadith says, “The Prophet said, “Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The woman said, “Yes”. He said, “This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.”(Bukhari: Vol3, Book 48, No.826)  “Tell the men with you who have wives: never trust a woman.” (Ishaq:584) “In hell I saw women hanging by their breasts. They had fathered bastards.” (Ishaq:185)

According to Islamic theology, women are not equal to men as women are deficient in intelligence. A hadith by Bukhari, in this regard says, “Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Once Allah’s Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o ‘Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle ?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.” ( Bukhari Vol.1:Book 6:No 301)

Conclusion:

From the above discussions, it becomes evident that, in the Muslim society, women do not have a status equal to that of a man and Allah puts value of a woman just the half that of a man. Secondly, Allah condemns the women as an unclean and wretched lot and prohibits their entry into his paradise. The intention of Allah, according to the verse (4: 34) of the Koran, is to keep the women economically dependent on men. So, if they receive education and become economically self sufficient, it will be a challenge to the instruction of Allah. So, they are not to be allowed to receive education after the age of 8 years. After that, they should remain indoor and read only the holy Koran, so that they remain stuck to the civilization of 7^th century AD.
At the same time, they should be covered with head to foot burqa, so that they may not get enlightened and remain to be used by the men as sex-slaves, a sex object to be raped by the men. If they become enlightened by receiving modern education, they would acquire strength to protest the oppressions heaped upon them by men. So the most appropriate step is to keep them illiterate and thus to keep them remain as sex-slaves of the males. But, in many Islamic countries, women are being enlightened by receiving and have started to question Islam. We hope to these developments in a future article.

[1]  http://www.brookesnews.com/072805peck.html

Sudanese bishop urges US to use broad diplomacy to end violence

A bishop in southern Sudan has urged the United States to use whatever diplomatic means it can to pressure the government of President Omar al-Bashir to end its attacks on civilians in South Kordofan state. Bishop Eduardo Hiiboro Kussala of Tombura-Yambio said the danger of war is great if troops from the North continue their attacks in an attempt to control key areas along the unresolved border between Sudan and Southern Sudan, which is scheduled to become independent July 9. Speaking on Thursday to Catholic News Service, prior to testifying about the situation in Southern Sudan to the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights, Bishop Kussala expressed the people’s fears saying, “We want the American community to prevent us, to not go back to war." While sporadic conflicts began soon after residents of Southern Sudan voted overwhelmingly to be independent from Sudan in a January referendum, the violence intensified in May as government troops from the North sought to control key areas in South Kordofan, which borders the oil-rich states of Unity and Upper Nile.

Radical Islam spreading in US prisons – lawmakers

AFP/Getty Images – Committee Chairman Rep. Peter King participates in a House Homeland Security Committee hearing on Capitol

WASHINGTON, D.C.: US prisons are becoming a hotbed for indoctrinating inmates and turning them into radical Muslims, US lawmakers were told on Wednesday (Thursday in Manila) in the second of a series of controversial hearings.

“Despite appearances, prison walls are porous. Outside influences access those on the inside, and inmates reach from the inside out,” Patrick Dunleavy, a retired New York prison inspector, told US lawmakers.

“Individuals and groups that subscribe to radical Islamic ideology have made sustained efforts to target inmates for indoctrination,” he said.

He was addressing a hearing of the House committee on Homeland Security, led by Republican Rep. Peter King of New York, whose first session in March on Muslim radicalization in the United States drew accusations of a religious witch hunt.

“Dozens of [former convicts] who became radicalized Muslims inside US prisons have gone to Yemen to join an al-Qaeda group run by a fellow American, Anwar al-Awlaqi,” King told the committee.

Awlaqi’s “terrorists have attacked the US homeland several times since 2008 and are generally acknowledged to be al-Qaeda most dangerous affiliate,” he added.

King has accused Muslim leaders and mosque imams of doing too little to stop the radicalization of young Americans and of not cooperating with law enforcement.

The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with about 1.4 million people behind bars across the country, meaning that there is potentially a captive audience.

“The prison population is vulnerable to radicalization by the same agents responsible for radicalizing Americans outside of the prison walls,” said Dunleavy, who has investigated terror recruitment in New York prisons.

“The initial exposure to extremist jihadi Islam may begin in prison. However, it often matures and deepens after the release,” he added.

And militant groups have little difficulty in smuggling materials into cells, he charged.

“Jihadi and extremist literature finds its way through the mail, even though it is largely prohibited. Anything can be gotten in prison, including a PDA or a smartphone,” he said.

But Purdue University sociology professor Bert Useem took a less alarmist stance, saying, “The crux of my testimony is that prisons have not served as a major source of jihad radicalization.”

He insisted that prison guards were vigilant about the dangers.

“Rather than waiting for facilities to be penetrated by radicalizing groups, correctional leaders have fashioned, staffed and energized the effort to defeat radicalization,” he said.

Former assistant US attorney Kevin Smith said, “The particular group that we’re talking about, these particular radicalized inmates, represent a very small proportion.”

He recognized, though, that “it’s a small portion with a much greater exponential danger for the community.”

Muslim Brotherhood Ayman Al-Zawahiri: New Al-Qaida Leader

On 2nd May following confirmation of the killing of Osama Bin Laden I predicted Ayman Al-Zawahiri would take the helm of Al-qaida, it is now official. Muhammad Rabaie al-Zawahiri may not be in egypt, but he still has very close ties with the muslim brotherhood old guard and their spiritual leader. Mahmoud Hussein, secretary general of the Muslim brotherhood in egypt said, “we respect Ayman Al-Zawahiri and his struggle against those that invade muslim countries, he is not a formal member, but I can not say he is not a member of the brotherhood, we support him in his struggle”.

Al-zawahiri was Involved in Islamist politics since he was a young boy and arrested for being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood when only 15 years old.
Hussein continued by saying, “Al-Zawahiri was not only lieutenant to , he was also his personal physician, he is very intillegent and will avenge the murder of Bin Laden. Al-Qaida will be more active under his leadership.”

When he joined the at age 14, Al-Zawahiri along with four other secondary school students, helped form an “underground cell devoted to overthrowing the Egyptian government and establishing an Islamist state. His cell eventually merged with others to form al-Jihad or Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Al-Zawahiri graduating from Cairo University in 1974, he served three years as a surgeon in the Egyptian Army then established a clinic near his parents and earned a master’s degree in surgery in 1978.

Al- Zawahiri’s ambition was to recruit military officers and accumulate weapons, with the intent to launch “a complete overthrow of the existing Government. The plan was to kill the main leaders of the country, capture the headquarters of the army, State Security, the telephone exchange building, and of course the radio and television buildings, where news of the Islamic revolution would then be broadcast, unleashing a popular Islamic uprising against secular authority all over the country.

It was only by good fortune that the plan fell apart when authorities were alerted and President Anwar Sadat ordered the roundup of more than 1500 Islamic radicals mostly Muslim brotherhood members, including many Al-Jihad members. Al-Zawahiri was one of hundreds arrested following Sadat’s assassination.
Had his plan succeeded, Egypt would not be the country it is today. Egypt would be another radical Islamist country mirroring Saudi Arabi and run by ”self indulgent God like figures” in the muslim brotherhood and their hypocritical and  obscene interpretation of Islam.

Al-Zawahiri is however seen as a coward by some in the muslim brotherhood, they recall how he revealed the hiding place of a key member of the Maadi cell of al-Jihad whilst he was held in prison. Many view his treachery guaranteed him early release after serving only 3 years in detention, whilst many of his “Muslim Brothers” were executed. Within months of his release. Al-Zawahiri fled Egypt, went to then travelled to Peshawar Pakistan where he eventually met Bin Laden.
 

It comes as no surprise that a Muslim Brotherhood member (whether current or not) is now the leader of the mother of terrorist organisations. Al-Zawahiri is “Sunni” muslim and fond supporter of Wahibbi islam as practiced in Saudi Arabia and promoted in egypt by the rapidly increasing Salafist movement.

There is growing speculation the Egyptian army has subversive links to Al-Qaida prompting them to release over 1600 Islamic radicals associated with the salafists. it is anticipated Al-Zawahiri will use the muslim brotherhood to strengthen his ties with radicals in his homeland and prevent a secular society emerging post the revolution.

One Muslim Brotherhood member speaking on assurance of anonymity informed us, “the spiritual leader of the muslim brotherhood Yussief Al-Qaradawi has been in close and constant contact with Al-Zawahiri, they are close friends and their association goes back decades. If all goes well Al-Zawahiri may return to egypt just as Al-Qaradawi did after the fall of Mubarak. These men believe this is the time to bring their decades old plans of true Islamisation in Egypt, it has been a life long struggle for these men and it has cost the lives of many of their muslim brothers”.

Why is it Islam, breeds so many delusional, delinquent, retarded mad men that think they are “Allah’ and have a duty to kill all those opposed to their view of Islam.?

Least we Forget the words of the self declared prophet mohammed: “My ummah (muslim community) will be divided into 73 sects and 72 of those sects will be deceived (by Satan) and go to HELL”. 

Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar
Who dare challenge the words of the mighty prophet?

UN chief’s message for World Day to Combat Desertification

Noting that the inhabitants in the world’s arid lands are among the poorest and most vulnerable to hunger, the United Nations chief has urged for the development of these dry lands. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon made the appeal in his message for the World Day to Combat Desertification, observed on Friday. This year’s observance took place in the current International Year of Forests, declared by the United Nations General Assembly to educate the global community about the value of forests and the extreme social, economic and environmental costs of losing them. The UN chief noted that 42% of the Earth’s tropical and subtropical forests are dry forests, where productivity has shrunk to below subsistence levels. “The challenges facing the “forgotten billion” men, women and children who live there deserve special attention,” Ban urged. He blamed the depletion, degradation and desertification of these lands on unsustainable land management and agriculture. “The management, conservation and sustainable development of dry forests are central to combating desertification,” Ban said, calling for rewarding “those who make drylands productive, so they will prosper and others will seek to emulate their example.” “Too often,” he noted “investing in drylands has been seen as unproductive or risky, instead of a necessary avenue for improving the well-being of local communities and national economies.” “Our challenge is to change market perceptions so drylands cease to be investment deserts,” the UN chief added.