Is the Playing Field Level for Stateless Olympiads?

Olympic flag flying outside Eland House in London (CC BY-ND 2.0)

“Do the Olympics highlight “free and fair” competition, or is it just one more scene in which the developing world’s disadvantages are starkly visible?”

This is the question that was on my mind when I watched the Olympic Procession on July 28. Olympiads clad in colorful regalia pranced and strutted beneath their nations’ respective flags. However, there was one group that stood out: the three independent athletes competing under the Olympic flag. At the time, I did not notice the absence of South Sudanese athlete Guor Marial, who could not be in London at the time because of complications due to his lack of a passport.

When I learned of this, it struck me that this is a real disadvantage. Possession of a nationality, a passport and ability to traverse trans-national and international borders are taken for granted by most athletes competing in the Olympics, yet it is a serious consideration for stateless athletes.

The fourth of the 5 “Fundamental Principles of Olympism” (within the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) Charter) states that:

“The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practicing sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.”

What, then, does this mean for stateless athletes?

South Sudanese marathon runner Guor Marial will be one of 4 independent athletes competing in the Olympics this year. The remaining three, Philippine van Aanholt, Reginald de Windt, and Lee-Marvin Bonevacia, hail from Curaçao, of the former Netherlands Antilles, dissolved in October 2010. (Eight months following its dissolution, during the June 2011 International Olympic Committee (IOC) Executive Committee session, the Netherlands Antilles’ membership on the Committee was withdrawn.)

Competing as an independent athlete means rather than competing under their nation’s flag, they do so under the Olympic flag. Independent athletes fall under three categories that overlap: those who are stateless, those whose nations do not have Olympic Committees, and those who hail from occupied or colonized states. In Guor Marial’s case, it is a combination of the first two, as South Sudan has hundreds of thousands of stateless inhabitants, and does not have an established Olympics Committee.

In January 2011, the people of South Sudan- at the time, a de facto territory- voted for separation from the Republic of Sudan. Six months later on July 8, 2011, the Republic of South Sudan was an independent state. However, the issue of nationality is still unresolved for many Sudanese and South Sudanese. The April 8, 2012 deadline for residents in southern Sudan to declare their nationality passed, leaving several hundred thousand either stateless or residents of the Republic of Sudan.

This is due, in part, to the August 2011 Sudan Nationality Act passed by the Khartoum government, which declares that Sudanese may have dual citizenship with any state but South Sudan. This is especially salient for youth whose parents are both Sudanese and South Sudanese, as their nationality is based upon the nationality of the parent who holds legal custody.

Guor Marial’s story is one of the complicated ones. Born April 15, 1984 in Panrieng, in what is now South Sudan, he is a survivor of child slavery in Sudan during the Sudanese Civil War, and a former

Namibia’s Anti-BioPiracy Bill

[Cross-linked with Future Challenges Organization - Bertelsmann Stiftung]

Research suggests that trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, when specifically applied to “traditional” or indigenous knowledge, genetic material and plant and animal life, have a detrimental effect on biodiversity. The 2001 Doha Declaration suggested that the TRIPS Council look at the “patent-ability or non patent-ability of plant and animal inventions, and the protection of plant varieties.”

The Namibian government has enlisted the help of rural and indigenous communities to help draft the nation‘s first bill on access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge. The bill is set to be finished by the end of the year so that Namibia can sign the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising From Their Utilization, an international framework for equitable access to, and sharing of, genetic resources. As one of the main architects of the 2010 Nagoya Protocol, Namibia has been instrumental in defining and securing access and benefit sharing (ABS) rights for communities under the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity.

This is particularly important in the arena of intellectual property rights – or more specifically the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS). The World Trade Organization’s stated aim is to “strike a balance between the long term social objective of providing incentives for future inventions and creation, and the short-term objective of allowing people to use existing inventions and creations.” However, these TRIPs tend to favor the wealthier, more powerful party to the agreement, according them greater access and control over the resource than the country or community of origin has.

This bill would prevent the exploitation of indigenous natural resources like the “devil’s claw” (Harpagophytum sp.), a plant used by the San

Article: Drought, Reforestation and Ethiopia’s Land-Tenure Problem

[Cross-posted at Future Challenges Organization's blog]

[Macrotrends: Climate Change + Natural Resources & BioDiversity]

Ethiopia is set to reforest 15 million hectares  as part of a plan to be energy-neutral by 2025. The reforestation initiative accompanies efforts to develop renewable resources in hydro (dams on the Nile, which the Egyptian government opposes), wind, geothermal and bio-gas. The Millenium Reforestation Project is projected to generate 338,000 tons of carbon credits, of which the World Bank‘s BioCarbonFund will purchase 165,000 Co2e. The reforestation project will earn Ethiopia carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol‘s Clean Development Mechanism.

The project falls under the umbrella of the United Nations‘ seventh Millenium Development Goal: environmental sustainability. However, the increased use of land for biofuels as an alternative to wood as fuel is problematic, because it diverts land away from food production, while Ethiopia is the African continent‘s biggest recipient of food aid. Some 85% of Ethiopia‘s rural population are subsistence farmers living on less than 1USD a day. Nearly 10 percent of Ethiopians rely on food aid. In February 2011, the Ethiopian government requested food aid for 2.8 million people, citing a drought in the Somali region.

On Aid: Why Good Intentions Are Not Enough

[Cross-Linked w/ my other blog]

Let’s take the story of a giant, engorged on wealth and privilege. This giant trods upon the earth with greater might and size than his compatriots. He has had the advantages of being able to manipulate a global system that dictates who gets what- even down to potable water, fresh food and life-saving pharmaceuticals. Somewhere in the progression of history, this giant grew to prominence- likely after a world war that left his former rivals indebted to him. He turns his attention to the nations that his rivals colonized- namely those African, Asian and South/Central American nations many of us cannot name.

The giant’s steps invariably crush the voiceless, disempowered and disenfranchised as he drafts documents outlining what a human right is and how to measurepoverty in terms of numbers and indicators. The problem is- those numbers and indicators fail to take into account the most basic of human needs- access to potable water, access to and ability to produce food, access to vital knowledge. Additionally, the assumed universal of “modernization”- a teleological progression from hunter/gatherer to subsistence farmer to an industrial/urbanized society is adopted as a model of “progress.”

So the well-intentioned giant takes it a step further. He introduces Structural Adjustment Plans that require the liberalization, privatization of state-owned enterprises, demonization of labor unions and de-regulation of the “lesser” nations’ governments and economies. He normalizes debt, reduces tariffs, disincentivizes government provision of public goods and undermines the building of taxation structures- in the name of neoliberalism. Meanwhile, multinational corporations threaten the biodiversity of African and Asian ecosystems through intellectual property rights and patents. Claiming plants with medicinal properties and seizing the land on which they grow, these corporations displace the inhabitants of the land, forcing them to move to cities that are urbanizating too quickly to develop the infrastructure that would support the burgeoning urban populations.

In the wake of the destabilizing effects of these myriad policies

Article: The Global Food Crisis & Land Grabs in Africa

[Crosslinked at Future Challenges Organization: Article: The Global Food Crisis and Land Grabs in Africa ]

Land grabs on the continent of Africa are partly driven by recent food crises, which led to food riots all over the globe.  Currently, Africa has about a third of the world‘s arable land.  Long-term land leases and purchases of Africa‘s arable land are increasing as a response to the global food crisis. The implication is that the creation of commercial food plantations on the continent of Africa will not facilitate mutually beneficial arrangements between African nations and people and the multinational corporations that are buying up the land.

The global food crisis is exacerbated by the fact that unsustainable consumption patterns exist in North America and Europe (the „West“). Moreover, it is telling that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is pushing Monsanto‘s genetically modified seeds toward African farmers, touting increased productivity, while ignoring their detrimental effects.

„Using strains of crops that required fertilizer, pesticides and irrigation, the Green Revolution methods increased yields. But they also damaged the environment, favored wealthier farmers and left some poorer ones deeper in debt.“ (Seattle Times: Gates Foundation’s agriculture aid a hard sell, 20 January 2008)

The fact remains that much of the land in North America and Europe is not arable because of unsustainable farming practices. These practices include the use of Monsanto’s GMO, single-yield seeds and the cultivation of non-native or invasive species, which essentially strip the soil of essential nutrients. Urbanization and suburbanization is another factor in the decrease in arable land tracts in North America and Europe.

A World Bank study released in September tallied farmland deals covering at least 110 million acres — the size of California and West Virginia combined — announced during the first 11 months of 2009 alone. Over 70% of these land deals are concentrated in Mali, Libya, Sudan, Ethiopia, Madagascar and Mozambique. These deals usually stipulate the transfer of land ownersship to investors or long-term leases. (NYTimes: African Farmers Losing Land to Investors, 21 December 2010) Before 2008, the average rate was 10 million acres per year. This 1000 per cent increase in land deals is due, in part, to the global food crisis. Governments and multinational corporations buy the land to havegreater control over food prices and production.

In 2009, a land deal with a South Korean conglomerate that would have handed over half of Madagascar‘s arable land was met with mass protests and led to the overthrow of President Ravalomanana. The unpopular former president was replaced by his opposition leader, the former mayor of Antanarivo, Andry Rajoelina.

In Mali, nearly three million acres along the Niger River and its inland delta are controlled by a state-run trust called the Office du Niger. Multinational corporations from China and South Africa are investing heavily into Malian land for the cultivation of sugar cane.  Corporations based in Libya and Saudi Arabia are investing in land for the cultivation of rice. Other nations with heavy investment into African landgrabs includeCanada, Belgium, France, South Korea, India, the Netherlands and multinational organizations like the West African Development Bank.  One problem, for example, is that the Libyan government intends to import its agricultural products (rice, beef, etc.) produced on Malian land into Libya, rather than sell in local markets. This would be good news if the land deals weren‘t displacing Malian farmers. As Mali is still largely agrarian, displaced farmers face a dilemma.  By and large, they do not have the option to migrate to urban centers in search of work. Similarly, they do not have the choice to remain on the land that they tilled for generations.

Here is a map diagramming the buyers and sellers of Africa‘s arable land.

Will this have a disproportionate impact on women?

Traditionally, farming is the domain of women – especially subsistence farming. In some parts of Africa, the cultivation of certain crops, like yams and millet, is gendered. It is estimated that in Burkina Faso, women account for 48 per cent of laborers in the agricultural sector. In Zimbabwe, women comprise 61 per cent of farmers and 70 per cent of the labor force in the agricultural sector.  It makes sense to frame landgrabs as a threat to women farmers‘ autonomy.

As commercial food plantations replace smaller-scale farmers, the concentration of land wealth will place African women at a further disadvantage. Globally, women only own one per cent of land, despite accounting for about 66 per cent of all labor [household, agricultural, etc.]  In Uganda, only 7 per cent of women own land. In Kenya, customary land laws still bar women from owning land.  Senegalese law stipulates that men and women have equal rights to land ownership, but the reality is that economic discrepancies still favor men. It is fair to assert that poverty has a feminine face – and this is particularly true for Africa‘s women.

Land disenfranchisement through land grabs and forced migration from rural-agrarian communities have particularly detrimental effects on women. The majority of Africa‘s farmers are women. The creation of commercial food plantations, the increased concentration of land wealth, and the exportation of foodstuffs produced on African soil will likely have a deleterious impact on emerging economies on the continent of Africa, as well as on the people.

 

Article: How Trade Agreements Affect Access to Affordable AIDS Treatments in Africa

Crosslinked at Future Challenges Organization

(Macrotrends: Pandemics + Globalization)

„Because TRIPS (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights)allowed countries to issue compulsory licences only for domestic use, however, countries without local drug-manufacturing industries, including 37 in Africa, were unable to use compulsory licences to keep medicines affordable.“ („A ‘crisis in waiting’ for AIDS patients:Trade rules will make it harder to get cheap generic medicines)

In the year 2009, an estimated 1.3 million adults and children died as a result of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. African women and girls are particularly vulnerable to HIV. As about 76% of all HIV-positive women in the world live in Africa south of the Sahara. Since the beginning of the epidemic, more than 15 million Africans have died from AIDS.

While access to antiretroviral treatment is beginning to mitigate the toll of AIDS, fewer than half of African AIDS patients are receiving the treatment.  In 2009, only 37% of AIDS patients have access to antiretroviral treatments, compared to just 2% in 2002. According to the UNAIDS factsheet, between 2004 and 2009, AIDS-related deaths decreased by 20% in sub-Saharan Africa.

HIV infections and AIDS-related deaths are on the decline among children on the African continent. In southern Africa, between 2004 and 2009, the number of children under 15 who became newly infected with HIV was reduced by 32% (fell from 190 000 in 2004 to 130 000 in 2009). Between 2005 and 2009, the percentage of pregnant women living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa who received antiretroviral drugs to prevent transmission of HIV to their children increased from 15% to 54%.

Addressing Human Trafficking on the Continent of Africa

[Cross-Posted at Future Challenges]

Scan the newspaper headlines and you might see the words „white slavery“ or „human trafficking.“  Neither of these phrases conveys the full injustice that is trafficking in persons.   Trafficking refers to the movement of human beings across borders- state, country and continental.  This movement will usually be from a country of origin to a country of destination.  There are links between emigration/immigration and human trafficking- especially where smugglers and traffickers (associated w/ organized crime) overlap. The fact is that there are an estimated 27 million enslaved people on this planet- more than at any point in history.  This is an estimate, as human trafficking is the 3rd largest underground industry- very difficult to track.

In addition to this, the price of a slave is at a historical low- the global average is about $90.  The price of a human being has collapsed at the point when the number of slaves reached historical heights. 

July 11 is World Population Day: My Response To Malthusian Arguments For “Overpopulation”

So, I just got an email from USAID informing me that today is “World Population Day.”  From my cursory reading of the email, I noted that the emphasis was on the provision of contraceptive birth control to women in the “developing world.” “Family planning” sounds rational, but it is hardly a sufficient solution for the greater problems of overcrowding in urban spaces, the impending food crisis in “underdeveloped” nations such as Sudan and India.  The provision of birth control in the developing world strikes me as another exercise in hegemony: the reproductive choices of those in the “underdeveloped” South are policed under the guise of humanitarian aid.

World AIDS Day: PUTTING THE AIDS DISCOURSE IN CONTEXT

(originally published 1 December, 2009)

Today is World AIDS Day.  Since 1981, 25 million have died from AIDS. There were 33.4 million people living with AIDS in 2008.  At the end of 2008, 50% of AIDS cases were women.  There are over 1.4 million AIDS cases in North America.

I didn’t wear red today (I go to Cal… I don’t own a single red article of clothing!), but I did tweet about HIV/AIDS and did some reading about AIDS today.  I’ll admit, my last tweet was flippant.  I simply said “get tested and don’t do anything stupid.”  Of course, that’s not sufficient.

There is the issue of considering the well-being of others [particularly sexual partners and children.]  While I advocate abstinence, I can only suggest using condoms for any and all sexual activity with a partner.  Maybe I am being uncharacteristically frank today, but I have to do more than wring my hands and quote statistics.  I won’t turn this into an essay extolling the virtues of chastity and abstinence.

But I will point to the truth.  The truth is about the most offensive thing I can say.  AIDS is not merely “the gay disease.”  That meme inhibited any progress that could have been made to prevent the spread in the 1980s in the US.  The politically conservative climate would not allow for the progression of the overlapping discourses of human sexuality and epidemics- especially if HIV/AIDS was understood in terms of gayness.  The misconception that HIV could be spread through casual contact made the stigmas surrounding homosexuality even worse.