Plight of Darfur Region

Sudan is the largest African country. With good oil and mineral resources, the people should live there prosperously. But they don’t. There is no unity among the various peoples inhabiting the country. Nearly 100 languages and dialects are used by the various tribes. Constant civil war has been the curse of the country all these years.The Arab Muslims living in the north are generally the rulers; in south people are divided among various tribal populations following Christianity and several traditional religions. The religious and cultural differences keep the people divided permanently. In the absence of an enlightened welfare government the misery of the people and human rights violations continue unabated.
On the International Human Rights Day, incidentally also marking the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UNO, US President George Bush highlighted the plight of the people of Darfur region of Sudan. He met Halima Bashir, a tireless human rights worker of the region in White House.
Halima Bashir is a doctor. She was running her clinic in Darfur. She came to know of the rapes of girls at a nearby school. The young girls, some of them not even eight years old, had been assaulted by government-supported Janjaweed militias. She treated them and made their story public, thus incurring the wrath of the militias. The Janjaweed militias kidnapped her; tortured and gang-raped her. She escaped and published her experiences titled ‘Tears of the Desert: A Memoir of Survival in Darfur’.
President Bush praised Halima Bashir for her brave work. He described her as a brave soul and said, "She has witnessed violence, deprivation, and she carries a message of a lot of people who want our help."
Mr. Bush assured her that even in these tough economic times, the United States will continue to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Darfur. He said he also expressed his frustration with the pace of action at the U.N.
"The United Nations must expedite sending troops, peacekeepers, to provide security for the people," said Mr. Bush. "That's what they want. They want to be able to have a secure life, and we will help."
President Bush did not refer directly to the charges leveled against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir by the International Criminal Court, which has accused him of a campaign of rape, murder and deportation in Darfur. But Mr. Bush left no doubt he believes the Sudanese leader bears responsibility for the violence.He said, "It is very important for President Bashir of Sudan to know that he cannot escape accountability, that if he so chose he could change peoples' lives - the condition of peoples' lives - very quickly."
Halima Bashir listened quietly, and then responded in a very soft, low voice. She was covered from head to foot in a bright cotton cloak. The White House said she wanted to shroud her identity from her enemies.
Halima Bashir said, "I am very happy, because now the Darfur victim's voices are heard in the White House." She said the people of Darfur have endured five years of bloodshed. She said they do not need to wait anymore; they need action.
The plight of Darfur region calls for international attention. The janjaweed militia has the open support of Sudanese government and its army manned by Arabic speaking Muslims. Darfur’s non-Arabic speaking tribes are the victims. The militia abducts thousands of civilians from Darfur, including children and uses them as sex slaves and forced labor.
Darfur Consortium is a coalition of 50 African and international charities. Dismas Nkunda, Co-Chair of the Darfur Consortium has said, “The Government bears a direct responsibility for these violations as they have generally been carried out by government forces or the militias which the government of Sudan established and supported.” The western aid agencies and diplomatic sources consider that in the last six years, nearly 30000 persons have been killed and that at least 2.5 million persons have been forced from their homes. Darfur Consortium states that the human right violations of the worst order carried out by the Arabic Muslims are part of a determined government policy of ethnic cleansing in Darfur.
Such gross violations of human rights are blemishes on the humankind. The injustice perpetrated in Darfur region is government-sponsored one! The UNO should be able to intervene effectively in such cases without wasting time and restore normalcy in the lives of these innocent poor people.
Source
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-12-10-voa19.cfm
The New Indian Express, Chennai dated December 18, 2008

Palestinian Reconciliation

Of all the international conflicts the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been the most deep-rooted and prolonged. The conflict has become multi-faceted and hence more complicated. Mr. Tony Blair served as the British Prime Minister for about ten years. As soon as he resigned, the same day, he was appointed as the representative of the Middle East Quartet, consisting of the United Nations, European Union, Russia and the United States, to help the Palestinians develop their institutions and economy. Now he has been the representative of the Middle East Quartet for more than 18 months. A statement he made on the need for Palestinian Reconciliation in his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington on December 3, 2008 can be easily termed a locus-classicus. Tony Blair said:The problem is that until now the reality on the ground for Israelis and Palestinians has not passed what I would call the minimum threshold of credibility for the political negotiation to succeed. Not for the Israelis on security, not for the Palestinians on lifting the occupation.
For a conflict to get solved there should be a basic inclination on the part of the parties concerned. And, the ground realities should be conducive to allow that inclination to flower as a final political decision. It is doubtful if such a basic inclination is there; and the ground realities seem to be drawing the conflict away from solution.
Existence of two factions among the Palestinians, viz. Hamas and Fatah has created an impossible situation so far as the resolution of this conflict is concerned. These two factions have become more hostile after the Hamas seized control of the Gaza strip from the Fatah. The authority of the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Fatah Party) has been practically restricted to the West Bank region. If the two factions cannot sort out their differences, Mr. Abbas would be forced to opt for elections soon. But the Hamas commands a large majority in Palestinian Parliament and challenges the authority of Mr. Abbas to call elections. The Arab nations who have been supporting the Palestinian side all along want to be neutral between the Hamas and the Fatah. They, however, want President Mahmoud Abbas to continue in office and bring the two factions together. Arab League foreign ministers met in Cairo on November 26, 2008. In that emergency meeting they appealed to both Palestinian factions to reconcile and work harmoniously.
To complicate the issue further, the Hamas controlling the Gaza strip, are accused of cross-border rocket attacks against Israel. This clash has led to the blockade of the region by Israel. Though Arab nations have come forward to send food and medicine to Gaza strip, the damage caused to the atmosphere cannot be easily undone.
It is important that the faction-ridden Palestinians should understand the sense behind what Mr. Tony Blair has highlighted. He has said:There can only be one Palestinian state. It will combine Gaza and the West Bank. However much we are tempted to set Gaza to one side because of the chaos it causes to Palestinian cohesion, it cannot be. But neither is its predicament inevitable. It can and it must be reversed.

A silver lining in the cloud is the optimism of the Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. On November 25, 2008 he said in Washington that two sides did not need months to make a decision on a peace agreement. He said that he believed he could reach agreement with the Palestinians on core peace issues soon.
However sincere Mr. Ehud Olmert may sound, the time factor is not very favorable. It was the President Bush, who took strong initiatives for the revival of Middle East peace talks last year. He would cease to be President on January 20, 2009. There will be a new Prime Minister in Israel early in February. With very limited time at their disposal, what both these leaders could do does not appear bright.
The efforts of these two leaders, however, deserve very special mention in the annals of middle-east history. The Mid-east conference in Annapolis opened in the presence of President George Bush on November 27, 2007 has paved the way for comprehensive consultations between Israel and Palestine. The Annapolis conference, however, set a goal of Peace Agreement by the end of 2008. This has not been achieved.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said, “They won't achieve agreement by the end of the year. But they have achieved a good deal of progress in their negotiations, a good deal of progress in the work that is being done on the ground. And I would just remind you that this is the first time in almost a decade that Palestinians and Israelis are addressing all of the core issues in a comprehensive way to try to get to a solution. And if that process takes a little bit longer, so be it."
On the advantages of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Tony Blair has said:Peace between Israelis and Palestinians would release forces of modernization across the region. It would pin back the forces of reaction and it does not inhabit an entirely separate sphere from issues like Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan or any of the other troubled parts of that region, which crowd in on our consciences and compete for our attention. It is integral to resolving them too.
It is now very clear that any solution of Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be possible only after the Palestinian reconciliation. The ball is no doubt in Palestinian court.
Sources
http://enews.voanews.com/t?ctl=20AA208:F7F0B63DAB0DE8EE088B3C6F470B465AE55ED32ED25AB8F6&http://enews.voanews.com/t?ctl=20A211F:F7F0B63DAB0DE8EE07399CAAE30131F6E55ED32ED25AB8F6& http://enews.voanews.com/t?ctl=20D2189:F7F0B63DAB0DE8EEBF69D66EEFEE36E130EB2FA2E66CBB22& http://enews.voanews.com/t?ctl=210AB17:F7F0B63DAB0DE8EE817ECD0A9D9D42642E7CA1C1B166B639&

Cleaning the River Ganges

The river Ganges has been held in high religious esteem by the Hindus from time immemorial. It is Ganga Matha (Ganga Mother) for millions of the Hindus. It rises from the majestic Himalayas, Gangotri to be exact, at a height of 4299 m (13779 feet). The river Ganges flows through a thickly populated plain land for 2700 km qualifying as the biggest river in India.
Morning prayers on the banks of the river Ganges
In its long journey towards the Bay of Bengal it passes through countless villages and more than 120 cities. Its interaction with the terrain and its people not only spoils its pristine purity but also makes it highly polluted. The river noted for its ability to remove any sin or pollution of the persons having a dip in it, has been unable to face the onslaught of industrial and other wastages dumped in it all through its way.
The demand to save the river Ganges from becoming polluted and a health hazard is not new. A number of environmentalists and scientists have been raising this issue all along but without much success. A scientific management of this great water resource would help the people in a number of ways; and also retain its glory as a sacred river.
Apart from the growth of population on its banks, the river Ganges has had to bear the additional burden due to industrial growth also. It has been estimated that every day 1.7 billion liters of effluent enter the river! And, most of it is ‘untreated’! Add to this, the physical remains of millions of the Hindus getting into the ‘sacred’ water. The World Health Organization has described the river Ganges as ‘an environmental hazard’! According to them, each year the pollution contributes to the deaths of up to 1.5 million children under age five from dysentery and diarrhea. It raises the threat of diseases such as cholera, typhoid, guinea worm, and trachoma. The Sankat Mochan Foundation environmental group has led calls for cleaning the Ganges for nearly 25 years. Veer Bhadra Mishra, the president of the foundation, former professor of hydraulics, and a Hindu priest has said, "The pollution in Ganga is contributed by two sources; the point sources of pollution, that is, the sewer outfalls, open drains discharging domestic sewerage and industrial pollution along the whole length of Ganga - the 2,500 kilometer length - and they contribute 95 percent of the pollution. So this has to be stopped."
At long last, something seems to be happening. The Government of India is giving a closer look of the project of cleaning the river Ganges, after the river has been declared a National Heritage in November 2008. It has been a National Heritage all the times but a ‘declaration’ saying so matters a lot!
The project of cleaning the river Ganges calls for cooperation from the masses. In India alone, in five states, 450 million people live on the banks of the river. From the very early morning, all its ghats are crowded by faithful Hindus who have their sacred dip in its waters. The ancient city of Banaras attracts millions of the Hindus; they come there not merely to have a dip in the river but also to perform various religious deeds on its banks to propitiate their ancestors. The aged Hindus consider it a boon to die within the city of Banaras; in their opinion, if they do, they would not have to be reborn in this world. The ever-present huge crowds and the non-stop pressure on the ghats would make the project of cleaning the river Ganges doubly difficult.
The Government of India has established the Ganga River Basin Authority to safeguard the river. The government hopes that the new plan, replacing all the old piecemeal ones, will pave the way for an integrated approach. Measures to improve the quantity and quality of the water flow in the river would be taken up soon.
Veer Bhadra Mishra of Sankat Mochan Foundation has pointed out that how the earlier efforts included construction of water treatment plans and how they failed due to chronic power shortage and other problems. Secondly, he points out that the anti-pollution measures should be implemented with legal force. Unless the practice of dumping all sorts of wastages in the river is stopped with legal force, positive results could not be attained.
The real enemies of the river Ganges are some of its blind worshippers. There are a few who argue that the river Ganges, being sacred, could not be polluted by anybody or by anything. Even thinking of Ganga as polluted river is anathema to them.

Everyday in the evening, thousands of the Hindus assemble, sing hymns, praise the greatness of the river Ganges, perform haarthi and worship her. This religious practice shows their gratitude to the great river that has been supporting their lives for thousands of years. But it does not occur to them that throwing plastic items, dirty clothes and innumerable wastes is anything but veneration.
Let us hope that the recently established ‘the Ganga River Basin Authority’ would take some effective steps to clean the river Ganga and also maintain it as a clean river befitting her name and fame.
Source
http://enews.voanews.com/t?ctl=210AB18:F7F0B63DAB0DE8EE817ECD0A9D9D42642E7CA1C1B166B639&http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0723/p01s01-wosc.html

Australian Plan on Global Warming

Australia has to go a long way to reserve a position for itself among the nations trying to tackle the problem of global warming in a responsible manner, with a global perspective. Its plans on global warming outlined recently have been received with mixed response, even by the people of Australia.
It is admitted that the greenhouse emissions if left unchecked would increase beyond measure in the next three decades. This is a question having a bearing on a huge range of activities; from individual lifestyle to operational behavior of large scale industries, all our activities make an impact on the environment of the world, mostly adversely. Now Australia has come out with its detailed long term plan to meet the challenges of global warming.
According to the announcement of government, a most comprehensive program of carbon trading will be fully functional in Australia in 2010. Outside Europe, this is the most noteworthy program. The objective is to cut greenhouse emissions by 5% of 2000 levels (minimum) by 2020. If other countries could work for a higher target, Australia could also step up its target easily.
Mr. Penny Wong, Australian Climate Change Minister is of the view that the global warming is a threat to economy and effective action is called for to deal with the situation. There is a growing awareness that in the absence of measures to safeguard environment the nation would be losing many vital industries and the job opportunities that go with it.
The cornerstone of the Australian Plan is a carbon emissions trading program to be introduced within two years. This brings within its fold one thousand of Australia’s top level companies, covering nearly 75% of greenhouse emissions. It is generally agreed by leading scientists that the greenhouse gases of carbon dioxide and methane cause the most damage. These two gases are produced mostly by burning coal and oil. The companies engaged in these activities will have to buy permit for each ton of carbon they emit.
The environmentalists are disappointed with what has been announced. In their expectation, a 25% cut of greenhouse emissions is the minimum the government should work for. They think that the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd should address the issue more seriously. Ray Nias of the environmental group WWF has warned that the nation would have to pay a heavy price later for the low targets fixed now. He has said, "It commits Australia to long-term climate change. It will make Australia's ability to negotiate global agreements very, very difficult. It is much lower than even we had imaged the worst case being."The disappointments manifested as public demonstrations as well. About 100 persons assembled outside Parliament House in the national capital Canberra to express their disappointment of Rudd's cuts while in Sydney more than 100 demonstrators rallied outside government offices.
New South Wales Greens lawmaker John Kaye said, "Today's protest is to tell Kevin Rudd that the Australian people didn't vote for five%."
Australia relies on coal for producing electricity. This increases its per-capita greenhouse emission. At the same time, the impact of global warming would also be greater on Australia; some scientists have pointed out that the occurrence of frequent droughts in recent years could be indicative of serious adverse effects likely to afflict the country because of global warming. Droughts focus on the plight of the farmers and there are some who argue that they should be exempt from the carbon trading program for a minimum of five years.
The Global Economic Crisis and its effect on Australian financial system have provided another argument against the environmental program. Many business stake holders have warned against adding burden on the organizations already struggling to pull on. Peter Anderson, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has said, “It does beg the basic question and that is whether or not these costs can be borne by business in the first place at a time when Australia is going through an international economic firestorm and we need to come through that economic firestorm with a strong economy… And placing domestic stress on the economy is just going to make that more difficult."
The Prime Minister, however, has stood his ground, without seeming to be aggressive. He has justified the cuts as "a responsible course of action" necessary for the economy and for dealing with the environmental challenge of climate change. He has said, "The Australian government, given the global financial crisis, makes no apologies whatsoever for introducing responsible medium term targets to bring down our greenhouse gas emissions, capable of being built on in the future more ambitiously," he told reporters in remote Western Australia.
Source

http://enews.voanews.com/t?ctl=21062CA:F7F0B63DAB0DE8EEAECA660C8555BBD8D937473925D9872C& http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Earth/Protests_over_climate_plan/articleshow/3845635.cms