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Olympic Committee (IOC) Executive Committee session, the Netherlands Antilles’ membership on the Committee was withdrawn.)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

The New City: Slums – The Problem of Sustainable Urban Population Growth and Infrastructure Development in Africa’s Cities

Cross-linked with Bertelsmann Stiftung – Future Challenges

In the year 2008, for the first time in history, over half the global population were urban-dwellers. By 2030, more than 60 per cent of people are projected to live in cities.

Where will these demographic shifts be seen? Africa and Asia’s urban populations are expected to increase 271 percent (from 1.7 billion to 4.6 billion) between 2000 and 2050, the rest of the world population is projected to stabilize at 4.5 billion. This means that, if the UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) projections are correct, half of the world population will live in urban Africa and Asia.

The UNFPA also projects that between 2000 and 2030, sub-Saharan Africa‘s population will double. (We must note that urbanization is not the same as urban population growth. The latter is only partly driven by the former.) This distinction is particularly important when we examine data, which, when misinterpreted would cast Africa’s urbanization as historically exceptional, when it is not. Part of the confusion stems from the fact that urbanization rate (“the rate of increase in the share of a region’s population that is urban”) and urban population growth rate (“the sum of the region’s population growth rate and its urbanization rate”) are often conflated.

The continent of Africa has the highest rates of urban population growth globally and millions of Africans are migrating within their countries, as an estimated 20 percent do not live in their birthplaces. However, the fact remains that the majority of Africa’s expanding urban population have cities as their birthplaces, not rural villages. As of 2010, Africa‘s 412 million city dwellers far exceeded North America‘s 286 million. It is estimated that by 2025, more than half of Africa‘s population (60 percent) will live and work in urban centers.

Compare this figure was 14.5 percent in 1950, 28 percent in 1980 and 34 percent in 1990. In 1960, Johannesburg was the only city in sub-Saharan Africa with a population of over a million; however, by 1970, there were four: Cape Town, Johannesburg, Kinshasa (in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and Lagos (Nigeria). By 2010, there were 33 African cities with populations of over 1 million, including: Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), Nairobi (Kenya), Khartoum (Sudan), Luanda (Angola), Harare (Zimbabwe) and Dakar (Senegal).

In response to a 1997 United Nations (UN) questionnaire, 42% of African governments expressed a desire to change the spatial distribution of their countries’ population. In 2007, this figure was 51%. Among African governments, there is a strong anti-urban sentiment, which manifest in laws and policies designed to curb rural-urban migration being passed in nearly 80% of African states.

The Great Land Rush: Land Grabs & Food Security

Crosslinked at Bertelsmann Stiftung – Future Challenges Organization

The Great Land Rush and Food Security

What is land?

Many of us don’t think about what land really means. An economist might define land as the totality  of natural resources in a given area, while a lawyer might focus on  land, water and mineral rights. But a farmer’s answer might be simpler: land is the farmer’s capital. Land is the soil and  water utilized in the production of crops for the local or global market. In the context of an increasingly globalized world, land rights are paramount, particularly in the Global South (Asia, South America, Africa and Australia). As governments and multinational corporations buy up land, small farmers and indigenous groups are edged out.

A Global Phenomenon

A 2010 World Bank study showed that 110 million acres (44,515,420.7 hectares) of farmland worldwide were sold or leased in the first eleven months of 2009 alone;  70 percent of these land deals were concentrated in Mali, Libya, Sudan, Ethiopia, Madagascar and Mozambique.

Before 2008, land was sold or leased at an average annual rate of  10 million acres (4,046,856.42 hectares). However, in the last four years alone, nearly 148 million acres (about 60 million hectares) of land on the continent of Africa has been acquired by international investors and government bodies. This surge in land grabbing and speculation deserves attention because it poses a grave threat to regional food security, indigenous land and water rights.

These land deals are not just confined to the continent of Africa (which holds nearly two-thirds of the world’s remaining arable land). In the Middle East,  Bahrain has seen political upheaval and protest in the wake of a major land deal within its borders. White South African farmers are buying up land in Georgia while in the Ukraine, the state is planning to buy up 30 percent of the nation’s land to bolster the country’s food security. In Australia, in a similar move a Chinese company has offered to buy 80,000 hectares of farmland.

In one of Asia‘s poorest nations, 15 percent of Cambodian land has been signed over to private companies (made easier by the Khmer Rouge’s  prohibition of private property and subsequent burning of all land titles). In South America, the Brazilian government has shown its openness to greater foreign investment in rural land. In today’s globalized world economy, these land deals have far-reaching effects.

Why the rush for land?

Factors driving the land grab include population pressure, the burgeoning middle class in the Global South and its heightened demand for foodstuffs, in concert with individual countries’ concerns over food security. As ready access to food is essential to a politically stable nation, food security can have major political effects.

This was seen in 2009 in Madagascar when 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 then-President Ravalomanana.

Push Factors For Rural-Urban Migration on the African Continent

Crosslinked at Future Challenges Organization‘s blog.

[Macrotrends: Migration + Demographic Change + Natural Resources & BioDiversity]

As of 2010, Africa‘s 412 million city dwellers far exceed North America‘s 286 million. It is estimated that by 2025, more than half of Africa‘s population (60 percent) will live and work in urban centers, compared with 14.5 percent in 1950, 28 percent in 1980 and 34 percent in 1990. In 1960, Joannesburg was the only city in sub-Saharan Africa with a population of over a million; however, by 1970, there where four: Cape Town, Johannesburg, Kinshasa (in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and Lagos (Nigeria). By 2010, there were 33 African cities with populations of over 1 million, including: Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), Nairobi (Kenya), Khartoum (Sudan), Luanda (Angola), Harare (Zimbabwe) and Dakar (Senegal).

The United Nations Population Fund‘s 2007 „State of World Population“ reportestimated that 72 percent of sub-Saharan Africa‘s urban population lives in slum conditions. This is partly due to the fact that on the continent of Africa, urbanization typically outpaces infrastructure building and expansion in local governance. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) also projects that between 2000 and 2030, sub-Saharan Africa‘s population will double.

The continent of Africa has the highest rates of urbanization globally and millions of Africans are migrating within their countries, as an estimated 20 percent do not live in their birthplaces.

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.

 

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.