Tag: USA

America’s 2023 Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Who Policices the USA?

Posted on by Admin

On 22nd April, 2024, the US Congress with a fore note from the Secretary of State, Antony J. Blinken, issued the 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for all other countries that are on earth, except itself. It has been a practice it has committed itself into fulfilling since 1977 and not so much can be said as having started with bad intentions. In deed, human rights are a concern supposed to keep every person (individual or artificial) on high attention to either advance, protect or preserve. It’s therefore a commendable practice thus far. Many countries across the globe have its citizens suffering at hands of human rights violators in all forms. Some of these are out of territorial breaches, while others are internally castigated by kinsmen and kinswomen whose jobs it should be to do better. Lives still get lost for example, in many African, Latin America, and the Middle East at hands of both internal and external perpetrators. In unison with the subject reports, this is wrong, and should never be normalized as practice anywhere.

The forewords by Antony Blinken were interesting, especially how they described Kremlin’s actions in Ukraine, versus the description of Israel’s actions in Palestine. Interesting still, the language used to condemn practices by the People’s Republic of China. But while on a look out of a balanced analysis of the report, of all the countries as noted, the US could not bring forth a report on itself and how it’s ‘respecting’ human rights both internally and abroad. So, who polices the US foreign policies? It remains an unsolved question for many years despite many dissenters pointing it out, that while it’s commendable to make focus of other world key players regarding human rights practices, the watch should equally be made on the US, by itself and other state and non-state actors. As noted in the reports’ forewords, it points to major monitoring on states from whom US aid is supplied. That shouldn’t be passed off as a conflicting situation for the recipients, and therefore a compromise on taking equal watch on the donor.

As noted in the report, it coincides with the 75th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and at its inception, Eleanor Roosevelt, one of the authors of the UDHR noted, “The destiny of human rights is in the hands of all our citizens in all our communities.” It is an indictment on everyone to take center attention. The US as it did at the time of inception of the UDHR, committed to preserving human rights especially abroad but 2023 was quite an interesting year regarding the US foreign policies and it remains a non shocking scenario that the US couldn’t publish a similar report on itself and its activities. Rather, as many years before, any such statements on global state of affairs come as justification for their actions rather than self condemnation.

2023 was an equally busy year for the US especially in the middle east, and while the Israel-Palestine and Ukraine-Russia conflicts steal the attention for US actions, in similar measure as it maintained focus on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act, and consequential withdraw of funding, Cuba’s regime actions, Nicaragua’s government crackdown on dissent, Russia territorial breach on Ukraine’s border, and much more, the US had a run on Iraq and Syria. For many years now, the middle east has been a military play ground for the US. Many countries have consistently condemned the US involvement in the region’s politics citing instigation of more incitement. Baghdad condemned the strikes by the US on its territory which occasioned deaths and wounding of Iraqi citizens.

Of these attacks in the region since October 7, 2023 since the Israel-Hamas war peaked, there have been reported more than 66 separate attacks in the region. This comes off as though it’s the US so much concerned about stability of the region, using war to being more war. The attacks have been gazetted as warranted and even with the wanton killing of numerous civilians in the region by the US in 2023, it didn’t call for equal urgency to issue a report on its own human rights violations. Much as there are numerous world actors that have consistently showed concern and more especially with the players with valuable commercial interests in the area, not many are willing to raise a finger at the self appointed global police. This happens at a time when the United Nations, a body supposed to be impartial has been spotlighted as running selective interests to the West bloc.

As of April 2024, the US faces internal concerns regarding respecting the freedoms of expression and association that are guaranteed by the first amendment of the country’s constitution. Over 200 students across major Universities have been arrested and more crackdowns are still ongoing on the students protesting Israel’s war actions in Palestine. From the Northeastern University in Boston, to Yale, Columbia, Southern California, and more Universities joining the protests against the ongoing war, many peaceful protestors have been arrested and charged with inciting violence, vandalism, and criminal trespass, accusations many have criticized as unfounded, embarrassing to the national image, and illegal. But just as Anthony Blinken quoted Eleanor Roosevelt, human rights are a concern for all, and it’s only fair that in 2024 and years to come, similar documentation on both triumphs and condemnation be issued against the US by the US as it does annually for other global actors.

Alan Collins Mpewo is a Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Centre.

America’s 2023 Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Who Policies the USA?

Posted on by Admin

On 22nd April, 2024, the US Congress with a fore note from the Secretary of State, Antony J. Blinken, issued the 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for all other countries that are on earth, except itself. It has been a practice it has committed itself into fulfilling since 1977 and not so much can be said as having started with bad intentions. In deed, human rights are a concern supposed to keep every person (individual or artificial) on high attention to either advance, protect or preserve. It’s therefore a commendable practice thus far. Many countries across the globe have its citizens suffering at hands of human rights violators in all forms. Some of these are out of territorial breaches, while others are internally castigated by kinsmen and kinswomen whose jobs it should be to do better. Lives still get lost for example, in many African, Latin America, and the Middle East at hands of both internal and external perpetrators. In unison with the subject reports, this is wrong, and should never be normalized as practice anywhere.

The forewords by Antony Blinken were interesting, especially how they described Kremlin’s actions in Ukraine, versus the description of Israel’s actions in Palestine. Interesting still, the language used to condemn practices by the People’s Republic of China. But while on a look out of a balanced analysis of the report, of all the countries as noted, the US could not bring forth a report on itself and how it’s ‘respecting’ human rights both internally and abroad. So, who polices the US foreign policies? It remains an unsolved question for many years despite many dissenters pointing it out, that while it’s commendable to make focus of other world key players regarding human rights practices, the watch should equally be made on the US, by itself and other state and non-state actors. As noted in the reports’ forewords, it points to major monitoring on states from whom US aid is supplied. That shouldn’t be passed off as a conflicting situation for the recipients, and therefore a compromise on taking equal watch on the donor.

As noted in the report, it coincides with the 75th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and at its inception, Eleanor Roosevelt, one of the authors of the UDHR noted, “The destiny of human rights is in the hands of all our citizens in all our communities.” It is an indictment on everyone to take center attention. The US as it did at the time of inception of the UDHR, committed to preserving human rights especially abroad but 2023 was quite an interesting year regarding the US foreign policies and it remains a non shocking scenario that the US couldn’t publish a similar report on itself and its activities. Rather, as many years before, any such statements on global state of affairs come as justification for their actions rather than self condemnation.

2023 was an equally busy year for the US especially in the middle east, and while the Israel-Palestine and Ukraine-Russia conflicts steal the attention for US actions, in similar measure as it maintained focus on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act, and consequential withdraw of funding, Cuba’s regime actions, Nicaragua’s government crackdown on dissent, Russia territorial breach on Ukraine’s border, and much more, the US had a run on Iraq and Syria. For many years now, the middle east has been a military play ground for the US. Many countries have consistently condemned the US involvement in the region’s politics citing instigation of more incitement. Baghdad condemned the strikes by the US on its territory which occasioned deaths and wounding of Iraqi citizens.

Of these attacks in the region since October 7, 2023 since the Israel-Hamas war peaked, there have been reported more than 66 separate attacks in the region. This comes off as though it’s the US so much concerned about stability of the region, using war to being more war. The attacks have been gazetted as warranted and even with the wanton killing of numerous civilians in the region by the US in 2023, it didn’t call for equal urgency to issue a report on its own human rights violations. Much as there are numerous world actors that have consistently showed concern and more especially with the players with valuable commercial interests in the area, not many are willing to raise a finger at the self appointed global police. This happens at a time when the United Nations, a body supposed to be impartial has been spotlighted as running selective interests to the West bloc.

As of April 2024, the US faces internal concerns regarding respecting the freedoms of expression and association that are guaranteed by the first amendment of the country’s constitution. Over 200 students across major Universities have been arrested and more crackdowns are still ongoing on the students protesting Israel’s war actions in Palestine. From the Northeastern University in Boston, to Yale, Columbia, Southern California, and more Universities joining the protests against the ongoing war, many peaceful protestors have been arrested and charged with inciting violence, vandalism, and criminal trespass, accusations many have criticized as unfounded, embarrassing to the national image, and illegal. But just as Anthony Blinken quoted Eleanor Roosevelt, human rights are a concern for all, and it’s only fair that in 2024 and years to come, similar documentation on both triumphs and condemnation be issued against the US by the US as it does annually for other global actors.

Alan Collins Mpewo is a Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Centre.

Anti-Western Backlash and the need to rethink governance in Africa

Posted on by Admin

By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

USAID has one of the most appealing organisational commitments ever encapsulated in a mission statement. On behalf of the American people, they commit to promoting and demonstrating democratic values abroad and advancing a free, peaceful, and prosperous world. They are devoted to supporting America’s foreign policy by leading the U.S. Government’s international development and disaster assistance through partnerships and investments that save lives, reduce poverty, strengthen democratic governance, and help people emerge from humanitarian crises and progress beyond assistance.

USAID aims to support its partners to become self-reliant and capable of leading their development journeys. They are dedicated to fostering sustainable development and advancing human dignity globally. USAID is also keen on inclusion, supporting programs that advance equality of all people in communities regardless of their gender, sexual orientation or physical abilities.

Europe and North America pour billions into Africa to promote good governance and support the fight against poverty and corruption. Western intentions seem genuinely supportive and innocuous for Africa. So, why are African leaders and an increasing number of African elites drastically reacting negatively to Western policies? Are Western values under threat by this backlash? If so, why?

Firstly, the West needs the humility to accept that they are ignorant of how Africa (by “Africa” I mean “Sub-Saharan Africa” to be more specific) functions and how Africans’ world view & values, despite deep Western acculturation through colonialism, remain traditional in fundamental ways. The assumption that Western values are inherently right and universal is simply wrong. The West needs to first put these assumptions at bay before they profoundly engage Africa if they genuinely intend to help it.

The U.S. and Europe should support Africa based on African realities, not their Western ideas of what Africa must be like. Doing otherwise would be like medicating a dummy.

As an African, I understand fully that democracy, inclusion, human rights and governance are very necessary for my well-being. But my living conditions, economic status and cultural sensibilities are the fodder out of which these values must be manufactured, not from lectures, statutes, or sanctions from the West.

The West should be patient with us as they were with themselves while developing these aspects of governance in a manner compatible with their cultural values and living conditions. Sanctions are not going to instantly groom African homophobes to love homosexuals or respect their rights. But there are so many Africans who respect and advocate for minority rights by virtue of their humanity, who are now unfortunately opposed to the West on nationalistic grounds because Western interventions under the guise of defending minority rights undermine an even greater ideal- the sovereignty of African states.

These states, with their elderly ruling elite class, have a fresh memory of colonial occupation and barbarity. They are therefore reasonably going to be opposed to the West, erupting into the backlash we see today.

Whereas well-intentioned, Western support for Africa with its intended effect of modelling African states in the image of modern Western states, especially about governance, is misplaced.  The West views governance in Africa generally based on cliches. Cliches always have an element of truth, which overrides nuance for the analytically feeble analysts who reproduce these cliches as the full picture of Africa in scholarly work, human rights activism, and social commentary.

There is a rational explanation for how African leaders behave and how our politics organizes itself. The West should not think of this organisation as backward or irrational. Though imperfect in several ways, often the ways our politics works are not intended or designed by our leaders based on their virtues. Rather, this politics curves itself out of the realities it finds on the ground.

Western governance values evolved out of political contestations on the ground. They did not befall on them like manna from heaven.  Both the ground and the nature of political contestations in Africa are unique from those out of which the Western experience was shaped. Therefore, we cannot function the same way, even though we find certain Western values attractive and indeed, we aspire to embrace them. But we need to embrace them on our terms, not on dictates and conditionalities.

We should not and cannot de-historicize the past realities out of which our current experiences emerge. But we can work together to shape a better future for governance in Africa.

If Western powers maintain the stance that African countries are in disarray and must first conform to particular Western governance models and principles to earn their aid, they will have failed on the first step for rendering transformative support. It may be that the constitution and functionality of the state in contemporary Africa will never conform to Western notions of political modernity. Yet, the same state could evolve synonymous values as those cherished in the West. The evolution of states in Africa will not necessarily take the form of modern Western states, and that should not be the basis for punishing us with aid cuts or economic sanctions.

The writer is a Senior Research Fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

The World at a Stand Off

Posted on by Admin

By Moshi Israel

Growing up, many of us watched American “Westerns,” most popularly known as cowboy movies. In these movies, there was always a scene where two men, usually the protagonist and the villain, stood facing each other at a distance, and the one who could draw their gun the quickest would emerge victorious. These moments were commonly referred to as “standoffs.”

In today’s world, where the stakes are far higher than a mere Hollywood script, we find ourselves in a geopolitical stand-off. Despite the alarm bells ringing loudly, attention remains scarce as decision-makers are too busy pointing guns at each other. Only China seems to care about cooperation and the need for normalizing relations among the world’s heavy weights.

In Europe, the war in Ukraine has failed to reach a compromise as numerous young people die aimlessly. The West is set on punishing Russia for its military operations in their neighbor’s territory while the latter is set on protecting itself from NATO’s endless military expansion to its borders. Guns have been drawn and pointed and no one is dropping theirs. The developments on the battle field in Ukraine have had a negative effect on the global economy and specifically on the economies in Europe and the United Kingdom. As I pen this down, the UK has entered a recession by reporting a second consecutive negative quarter of GDP. On the other hand, Russia which was expected to fold under the weight of unprecedented sanctions has defied expectations. However, it is paying the cost with the blood of its young on battlefields in Ukraine.

Furthermore, political tensions are raising between EU allies. Most of Europe has resorted to ‘allegedly ‘using under handed tactics to coerce Hungary into getting in line with the agenda. Turkey is another wild card whose foreign policy is drenched in mind games of confusion which I believe are a reflection of Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s character. No one knows what Turkey might do or better yet what Erdogan might do. Also, one cannot forget about the protests by Farmers and other workers in Poland, Germany, France and the Netherlands. The Polish in particular have problems with special treatment for Ukrainian refugees and cheap Ukrainian grain that is devaluing the efforts of the local farmers. There have been intermittent squabbles between Ukraine and Poland but relations remain largely stable, at least for now.

In the Middle East, the war in Gaza has become a dividing factor within the international community. Israel has used what most have deemed excessive force in response to the Hamas terror attack on October 7th. The stories and pictures from this part of the world are painful to watch. The war is being carefully managed so as not to turn into a wider war regional war. We have Israel, Palestine, Iran and its proxies in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, the United States and a few willing allies, the Arab league, and Russia all pointing guns at each other. On the other hand, China is asking everyone to calm down in the region.

Furthermore, South Africa has prominently taken Israel to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on charges of genocide, sparking a heated exchange between the two nations. As anticipated, the ICC’s response was not definitive, underscoring the complexity of these issues that often transcend legal proceedings. On a less intense note, the ICC has been commendable in its pursuit of justice, particularly in holding warlords and dictators accountable across regions such as Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and South America. It’s notable that major world powers have not ratified the court’s jurisdiction, perhaps suggesting that they consider themselves beyond its reach, reserved for ordinary individuals.

Top of Form

In Africa, everyone seems to develop sudden amnesia when its people are dying. Sudan, South Sudan, Tigray and the DRC continue to be valleys and deserts of death. Some of these conflicts are triggered by external factors and influence. The endless massacres do not serve the interests of the African continent. The continent is a constant battle ground and backyard for great power struggles. Additionally, we have the dramatic series of coups in the Sahel belt. Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Guinea and Gabon have had military coups. Experts say, that Tunisia, Chad and Sudan had constitutional coups. Who are we to judge, let’s leave the nuances to the experts. However, this much is clear, most of these coups are internally popular and the common theme has been kicking out neo-colonial regimes that are deemed to be serving the interests of foreigners at the expense of the citizens. France has come up several times in these accusations. No one knows where all this is headed…but the guns are pointed.

When examining the United States, we encounter a complex entity akin to the mythological Cerberus, with three distinct challenges. Firstly, there are domestic political issues, secondly, concerns arise regarding US foreign policy, and finally, there’s the matter of US relations with the world’s second-largest economy. Internally, the US grapples with significant division. The political landscape is sharply split between the left and right wings. Progressives advocate for reform, while conservatives prioritize maintaining traditional values. Yet, both sides are influenced by a neoliberal ideology at their core, with only the fringes deviating from this norm. On the left, the fringe is represented by progressive socialists, often branded as “communists” by the right. Conversely, on the right, the fringe is perceived as the “MAGA right,” which the left tends to label as “fascist racist extreme MAGA conservatives.” If tensions persist between these factions, civil unrest within the US could be imminent. However, amidst this turmoil, there exists a dominant neoliberal core that has thus far maintained stability, despite being criticized by both the extreme left and right, and often referred to as the “uni-party.”

The Uni-Party is what has kept American foreign policy consistently antithetical to world peace. This includes interventions in foreign regimes, engagement in proxy wars for dominance, financial exchanges for political allegiance in developing nations, as well as conflicts against ideologies such as Islamic extremism, communism, and fascism. Notably, domestic issues in the US frequently spill over into global affairs, with US political decisions profoundly influencing international realities. Any internal discord within the US thus inherently poses a risk to global stability.

Tensions between the US and China are rapidly becoming tensions between the collective West, G7 and BRICS+. On the economic scale, Japan entered a recession alongside the UK. Japan has lost its global economic rank to Germany. These recessions have weakened the G7 economically as compared to BRICS+ economies. Currently, BRICS+ countries have a higher GDP in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP) than the G7. And the gap keeps increasing. This means nothing but guaranteed competition that will also put the world on its toes and guns will eventually be drawn.

The pressing question at hand is the significance of these developments and where they ultimately lead. Speculation is inevitable as we navigate this complex landscape. What is clear, however, is that the world finds itself in a scenario reminiscent of a ‘Western’, where every party seems poised for a shootout. Geopolitically, we’re at a standoff, and it seems only a matter of time before tensions escalate into action.

The Writer is a Senior Research Fellow at Development Watch Centre.

Palestine-Israel Conflict: U.S & the EU are Hypocrites; They Should Learn from China

Posted on by Admin

By Allawi Ssemanda
There are growing fears of unprecedented humanitarian crisis as a result of Israeli indiscriminate bombing and blockade of Gaza strip. This follows widely expected Israeli ground invasion as the fanatical far-right government vows to turn Gaza into what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called a “desert island” as a response to what Israelis see as humiliating attack by Hamas.
This is after Hamas fighters breached Israel’s assumed tight security and killed at least 1,200 people before retreating with captured soldiers and civilians as hostages. Israelis responded with a disproportional force; bombing Gaza with thousands of bombs and killed over 2,400 Palestinians including children, women and elderly. As indiscriminate bombing is ongoing, Israel has ordered more than 1.1 million people in Gaza to move to South but later targeted and killed 70 civilians as they fled the area. UN strongly opposed the order saying it is ‘impossible for such a movement to take place without devastating humanitarian consequences’.
Hamas argues; their offensive was in response to desecration of the Al Aqsa Mosque and endless Israeli atrocities against Palestinians over the decades listing 17-year blockade, Israeli raids inside West Bank cities, increasing attacks by settlers on Palestinians and growing expansion of illegal settlements in occupied territories.
Even before Netanyahu declared a “state of war” against Gaza, U.S ruler, Joe Biden responded equating Hamas’ incursion to America’s 9/11 before he repeated unsubstantiated Israel’s allegations that Hamas fighters “raped women” and “beheaded babies”. In what appeared like a well-rehearsed orchestra, from Washington to London, Paris to EU headquarters, they voiced their unconditional support for apartheid Israel and condemned “unprovoked attacks against Israel” and repeated Washington’s lines calling Hamas terrorists.
If critically analysed, as constructivists and poststructuralists would argue, terrorism is a result of stereotypes and a misconception politically and socially constructed to describe some groups with primary purpose of discrediting actors involved and portray them as violent so that they are rejected by right thinking members of community.

Just hours after Western leader’s similar wording of solid support for Israel, Israel’s far-right defense minister Yoav Gallant declared a “complete siege” Gaza’s about 365 square km, with its 2.36 million Palestinians, which has been under an Israel’s blockade for 17 years.

Describing Palestinians as “human animals” Gallant announced; “a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed.”

As Netanyahu posted videos of civilians’ buildings being bombed, EU President Ursula von der Leyen who on October 19th 2022 told EU parliament; “Russia’s attacks against civilian infrastructure, especially electricity, are war crimes. Cutting off men, women, children of water, electricity and heating with winter coming- these are acts of pure terror” did not criticise Israel’s decision to cut off same supplies to Palestinians.

The above shows double standards and hypocrisy of leaders of the E.U and their American allies. Rightly so, Clare Daly, the Irish Member of Parliament to the EU told off Ursula for being a hypocrite; “the double standards of Ursula and EU leaders are laid bare. They back Israel to hilt, even as it engages in state terror against innocent people. All wars are evil, and all victims deserve support, and until you get on that page, you have no credibility whatever.”

Sadly, Israel backers seem not bothered or are not doing much as civilians’ death from Israel’s collective punishment skyrockets. Hopefully, they are not waiting for the wishes of former U.S’ ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley who told Netanyahu to “finish them.” Put differently, the U.S and the EU are fully backing what radical theorists Noam Chomsky calls “wholesale state terrorism” against Palestinians.

Of the major powers, it is only China and Russia that have called for de-escalation, exercising restraint, respecting of international laws and ending hostilities to protect civilians. In a statement, China pointed at the root cause of Palestine-Israel conflict and suggested how to address it; “The fundamental way out of the conflict lies in implementing the two-state solution and establishing an independent State of Palestine. The international community needs to act with greater urgency, step up input into the Palestinian question, facilitate the early resumption of peace talks between Palestine and Israel, and find a way to bring about enduring peace,” read the stamen.

China’s response is not only peace cantered. It is in line with UN recommendations. Strangely, the U.S criticised China claiming it leaned more on Palestine’s side with U.S Senate Majority Chuck Schumer telling China’s top diplomat Wang Yi that China should stand with Israel.

It should be recalled; on 29th November 2012, after 65 years of the approval of the partition plan for Palestine, UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted to recognise Palestine as approved by UN within the 1967 borders as a non-member state with observer status. 138 countries voted in favour, 41 abstained and only 9 voting against it. Therefore, as one of the five UNSC permanent members, China’s stand should be lauded by the peace-loving countries including hypocrites in Washington and Brussels who have made it a tradition to cherry-pick when to call for observance and respecting of international laws.

Otherwise, it is despicable to see the Biden administration and allies unbothered by the racist and genocidal language calling Palestinians “human animals.” It is sickening seeing U.S which normally presents itself as a defender of international laws and playing by rules being the same country arming Israel with bombs aiding Netannyahu’s crimes against humanity in Gaza.

In equal measures, seeing EU’s Ursula von der Leyen issuing Israel a blanket cheque that she and the EU are behind what she called self defense which Israel is using including their complete siege and blockading of electricity, food, fuel, which while referring to Russia-Ukraine crisis called “war crimes” begs us to ask and doubt claims of values they have always claimed to have.

From above, Israel’s war against Palestine and Russia-Ukraine crisis have exposed the West and their lies. Their claims of being pro-democracy or having values is fake news as we have seen their media promote largely propaganda during the said two conflicts.

Like old brats, seeing Biden and Ursula von der Leyen, Rishi Sunak and Macron almost parroting Netanya’s speeches makes one thing clear. Geopolitics of self-claimed democracies and the so-called free world has never been about creating a peaceful and free world. The logic that guides these reckless powerful countries is not human rights or democracy, neither is it about respecting sovereignty of other countries or upholding international law. It is just power and their selfish interest. They are hypocrites and the world should despise them for insulting international collective intelligence.

While I agree that targeting civilians by any side is unacceptable, we must have historical facts right! It’s wrong to compare Hamas with ISIS as the U.S and Israel would want. Hamas has never staged any attack outside historical Palestine. Their attacks are always in historical Palestine and the illegally occupied Palestine areas. The logic way to end this Israeli made and America backed crisis is to address the root cause. Implement the two-state solution!

Allawi Ssemanda is Senior Research Fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

An African Perspective on the CPC’s Concept of Whole Process People’s Democracy

Posted on by Admin

By Moshi Israel

The Communist Party of China (CPC) has served the people of China for several decades with utmost effectiveness that should be admired everywhere. The success of the CPC is not a mere fluke, considering the complexity of China’s history and national realities. China with more than a millennium of history has had to endure civil wars and power struggles from different dynasties that exposed the common people to untold suffering. The opium wars and Western colonialism also left the once-great civilization of China on the brink of collapse. The CPC pulled China from the jaws of destruction and put the country on a path to unprecedented prosperity and success.

The People’s Republic of China is a vast country with a huge population and a diversity of cultures and ethnicities. To govern such a country, a certain political acumen and tact is required and the CPC under the leadership of President Xi has proved itself a very capable candidate to map China’s development well into the future.

President Xi introduced the concept of whole process people’s democracy back in 2012 and elaborated it as true democracy that addresses the people’s concerns and is characterised by the people’s participation in all state’s social, cultural, and economic affairs. This type of democracy is ‘whole process’ because the people engage in democratic elections, consultations, management, decision-making, and oversight in accordance with the constitution. On the other hand, it is the people’s democracy because China’s constitution labels the people as masters of the country.

The National People’s Congress (NPC) and the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) work closely with and hold two sessions in which they deliberate on the governance of the state with the people’s interests in consideration. These national bodies collaborate closely with elected grassroots officials to address issues of concern for every citizen. These grassroots committees run from the village, town, and city to the provincial level. Through them, the common person’s concerns are able to reach the highest level of the Chinese government. Moreover, the CPC despite being the dominant party of choice for most Chinese people, still works closely with a number of other political parties in China.

China has demonstrated that whereas every country should aspire to be democratic, the concept of democracy varies from one country to the next depending on their national context. Not every country is suited to the Western style of democracy. Aspects of culture, geography, history, demographics, and economics play a vital role in determining what sort of democracy a country will be. Centuries of the forced and failed Western way of democracy across the world indicate that perhaps everyone cannot be the same and being different is okay. From ancient Greece; the bedrock of democracy to Britain and the United States, democracy has come in different forms for all of these countries.

China, under the CPC, has clearly shown that democracy is not a mere jargon to be thrown around aimlessly, rather, democracy should be practiced and its results seen. China has achieved this by elevating over half of a billion people out of absolute poverty and putting China on a modernization path so effective, it has been dubbed a ‘miracle.’ Furthermore, China’s concept of democracy extends across two fronts; the domestic and the international arenas. Domestically, China has grown exponentially. On the international stage, China has spread the gospel of whole process people’s democracy with a unique Chinese socialism.

China, unlike the West, believes in and practices the concepts of mutual benefit, shared prosperity, and win-win partnerships with its international partners. Through the Belt and Road Initiative, the country has established good relations with others across the world.

African countries, as beneficiaries of China’s growth through the latter’s application of its democratic concepts on the international stage, should proactively seek to develop their own people-centered and development-oriented democratic structures. This should be based on each country’s national realities. Besides, China has always learned from other developed countries and altered these lessons to fit its national context.

Otherwise, the CPC with President Xi Jinping at the helm has produced amazing results by strategically choosing to put the development of Chinese people at the forefront. Rightly so, democracy should indeed be structured around people’s happiness. Elections and a thousand political parties do not mean much if the people are starving and underdeveloped.

Therefore, every Ugandan and every African should be asking their leaders, what sort of democracy they think they are engaging in if the people’s happiness is not a core priority. With China, we can see that political theory should be backed by strategic and patriotic practices centered on common prosperity and the right to development.

The Writer is a Senior Research Fellow at Development Watch Center.

 

The Multilateral Trading System: The U.S Should Stop Undermining Global Practice

Posted on by Admin

The Multilateral Trading System: The U.S Should Stop Undermining Global Practice

By Alan Collins Mpewo

It is not in doubt that the United States of America (US) has is always doing their best to stabilize global economy through various measures for selfish gains. Indeed, the US was among the spearhead as of what has popularly in recent times to be known as the Multilateral Trading System that has wide reception globally. This game after the second world that had seen an increase in various shortfalls especially during and shortly after the Cold war with the Soviets. The inception of this system lead to a finality of the General Arrangement on Tariffs and Trade. The Multilateral Trading System also saw the birth of the Uruguay Round sometime in 1980. Because of the growing conflict in the economies of scale between the competing blocs of the West and the Eastern globe there was need to set up formal rules to follow during international trade and business. Because of this, the United States was one of the founding members of the World trade organization and consequently part of the formulation committee over the World trade organization rules that would later bind all existing partners States at the time and those that would later in the near future adopt and assent to the World trade organization. Countless achievements have been since achieved by the World Trade Organization due to the recognizable leadership over the United States of America. It therefore goes without saying that the United States of America has made its solid contribution to the growth and periodic stabilization of the world’s economy.

Most important under the World Trade Organization rules was and still remains the dispute resolution mechanisms that have constantly been explored by the various parties whenever conflicts arise. The United States of America has without a doubt being on the forefront of always making sure that no more devastating consequences arise which would greatly affect majority of the global stakeholders in dangerously unimaginable levels. It should therefore be understood That’s that the United States of America has made various contributions as aforementioned herein, it has also in equal measures benefitted from the Multilateral Trading System. It is therefore safe to state that the system has been important in elevating various economies globally. The role played by the United States of America remains pivotal given that it is the world’s leading economy and ranks among the top three investment Nations in the world. Understanding that comes with major implications on how it exercises its dominance and authority in the various circles to which it trades and has power.

It is not bad for any Nation to come up with policies that seek to put it first ahead of other global key players’ interests. The United States of America in 2017 also came up with a major slogan and policy formulation along that line of “America first.” However, while it is a noble thing to do, friction and antagonism has since ruptured between the United States of America’s internal policies and the aspirations of other global actors under the Multilateral Trading System. The U.S has constantly deviated from the very ideas to which it was a founding state. Its trade protectionist policies have rather been hurting other trade stakeholders by closing the windows to trade information and active participation on the American soil. From commencing with ideas of globalization, the Multilateral Trading System has now come into an uncertain trade abyss and now every country does as it wishes under the current structures of global economics.

Among other things that explain the above State of affairs is the constantly unchecked bullying through its hegemonic tendencies that are used to exert unwarranted sanctions and dominance through the guise of “National Security.” In other instances, depending on how it chooses to act or react to other countries, it uses the connotation of “Human Rights.” It has been seen with the Middle East and due to the sanctions and blockages there has been deprivation of equity, debt, and investment in many countries because trade diplomacy ends up as a victim. Additionally, dispute resolution and settlement mechanisms have also been greatly undermined by the United States of America. An example can be cited before 2022 when the United States of America blocked the requisite appointments of the new members to the Appellate body. That alone has paralyzed the various efforts by concerned countries in trying to resolve the different disputes that have been arising on an appeal point of view. The United States of America holds a very important vote and by December 2022, it has refused the outcries from the other members of the World Trade Organization to have the Appellate body constituted for purposes of dispute resolution. While Article 17.2 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding gives the legal reception for the appointment of the members to the Appellate body, enforcement has been stalled by the United States of America. By February 2023, 29 appeals are still pending as a consequence of US’s actions.

Some other practices have included, offending export control, often undermining other members’ legitimate industrial policies, unwarranted sanction measures, economic coercion, disrupting industrial and global supply chains, among many other. Other strong economies and lead actors like China and Mexico and the World Trade Organization have constantly called out the United States of America over the above practices but the endeavors have met unresponsiveness. And therefore, while the U.S’ reaction remains an impediment, if unchecked, the once booming Multilateral Trading System is a route of demise.

Alan Collins Mpewo, is a Law and Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Centre.

China – US Climate Change Talks: China Still Resolute on its Commitments

Posted on by Admin

By Alan Collins Mpewo

While China’s role in the new world as is today get downplayed due to the geopolitical nature, sometimes its contribution to world stability cannot be dismissed. Climate change is a topic that concerns all, regardless of race and origin. Climate change is to be greatly faulted on human activity and China very much knows that its population (the highest globally) contribute not less than 19% of carbon emissions for example. Such numbers are not only dire but call for a joint fight because the collective data shows that everyone globally has a crucial role to play in mitigation of the probable consequences. It’s of little wonder therefore, that a US Envoy was in Beijing on 17’th July, 2023 over the same talks on climate. In deed, US Envoy John Kerry acknowledged on 20’th July, 2023 on the need of a common purpose without a look at any possible differences in a bid to contribute to the already ongoing implementation of the Glasgow Climate Change resolutions.

China hasn’t only been running internal policies to mitigate the climate change consequences, but has also showed commitment by formalizing such objectives with treaties, agreements, and memorandum of understandings with various global stakeholders. Sometime in 2021, China and a collection of other African partners under the Forum on China (FOCAC) assembled at yet another ministerial conference in Dakar, Senegal to which resolutions were later made. While global international relations centers have majorly focused on the economic implications for both parties to the FOCAC communique, they bury their attention to some other salient resolutions therein.

 

It goes therefore without saying that before the Glasgow Convention, China has always publicly showcased its unreserved commitment to making earth yet safe for all that live on it. The Dakar Action Plan is meant to span from 2022 to 2024. Point 7 goes with the title “Green Development.” The center stage of this action plan is to lower and perhaps mute the use of fossil and other carbon emitting fuels in the near future. China understands the negative effects that come with large amounts of carbon emissions. People globally have been losing their lives at young ages or their lifespans cut short, due to the chronic illnesses and other effects they have on mankind.

The fight for green development in China has mainly been based on renewable energy such as wind and the sun. Wind energy and solar energy as the epitome of this action plan. China has since encouraged the Global South to take this route, and by doing so, led the way into setting up de-carbonization campaigns in some townships like some that form part of Shanghai, in order to pave way for more establishments of windmills the coastal areas of the country where there is more wind pressure to propel gigantic windmills. This system has since worked, and although there isn’t much energy to be emitted to every household, and limited hours of potential use, it’s a positive step towards realizing global climate change mitigation.

Under 7.1.1, the African partners and China agreed that this point would be to propel global environmental governance. There had been exchanges in terms of expertise, logistics, and technology in as far as climate change mitigation can be achieved. Of the end goals, was ecological protection, and this has been seen for example in Uganda with the various environment impact assessments that have been done with the Albertine region in Uganda. The wildlife of Buliisa Game Conservation Area, the relocation of persons in the affected sites to new areas with newer areas of residence, and available safe methods of mitigating any potential consequences.

Be that as it may, there is the China-Africa Cooperation Center that has been operating with a goal of realizing that which has been agreed on by the partner states on the environmental conservation front. While it faces challenges which were realized at the time of issuing the Dakar Action Plan, there’s soon to be established a China-Africa Marine Science and Blue Economy Cooperation Center. Revitalizing China’s role in environmental conservation while responding to climate crisis by cooperation with partners of FOCAC under the China Africa Environmental Cooperation Center will be pivotal in maintaining the perfect balance of climate diplomacy. 10 green development projects are set to be a implemented on the Africa continent by China appreciating the continent’s role on global climate stabilization.

It can’t be Intentional to overlook the role of the youth in the climate change fight. While FOCAC partner states know the importance of all ages, they understand that the youths are the solid grounds of tomorrow. The trajectory of societal habits and various determinants inform society that the future isn’t going to be any better with the growth in technology, mechanics, and antagonisms that often come with wars. For Africa, vegetation cover has been fairly maintained and this has since been rewarding in climate change mitigation. Thus, FOCAC sought it wise to propagate the Green Envoys and Green Innovation Programs. These and their sister programs have much focus on the youth to enable them spark their abilities and desire to take part in the conversation efforts, but with more impact for the future.

Alan Collins Mpewo, is a Lawyer and Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Centre.

 

 

America’s Long-Arm Jurisdiction Threatens Sovereignty and Human Rights

Posted on by Admin

America’s Long-Arm Jurisdiction Threatens Sovereignty and Human Rights  

By Allawi Ssemanda

For decades, the U.S has on numerous occasions unilaterally announced sanctions targeting foreign companies involved in trade Washington deem against their interests through the so-called long-arm jurisdiction. Long-arm jurisdiction refers to jurisdiction over persons or entities domiciled or resident outside the territory of the sanctioning state.

It was unilaterally established after a case of International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (1945) in the U.S Supreme Court. This means that, it is largely in interest of the U.S.

This law is unacceptable in present global order. For example, on a simple basis that the defendant has what American authorities consider to be some “minimum contacts” with the state, under the long-arm jurisdiction, U.S state courts are allowed to exercise in personam jurisdiction in civil and commercial cases including where jurisdiction cannot be exercised. It is not a surprise that it has been largely used by the U.S to “punish” countries and companies’ world over the U.S considers to be impeding America’s interests.

Secondly, going by international laws, the exercise of a country’s jurisdiction over an extraterritorial person or entity generally requires that the person or entity or its conduct has a real and sufficient connection to that country. Yet the U.S. exercises long-arm jurisdiction on the basis of the “minimum contacts” rule, constantly lowering the threshold for application. The law is very unfair and gives American judicial system unchecked powers to go after foreign individuals and companies which we have no guarantee that it cannot be abused because of politics. For example, a mere use of the U.S dollar for financial services or using U.S mail services is considered to constitute the so-called “minimum contacts.”

Indeed, during Trump Administration, the U.S used long-arm jurisdiction to unfairly target China with endless unfair tariffs against Chinese products, an act some analysists argue was meant to promote unfair competition in favour of American companies.

A study by the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank found that the U.S used long-arm jurisdiction in violations of World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the U.S laws as Executive ignored Congress role. The study further revealed that while Chinese firms were most affected, even American’s citizens were affected as China responded to Trump administrations trade tariffs. The study entitled “Unfair Trade or Unfair Protection? The Evolution and Abuse of Section 301” argues that section 301 of long-arm jurisdiction “grants the executive branch far too much discretion in defining an actionable foreign trade practice” which may be exploited for political reasons – it allows American President to safeguard America’s trade interests by remedying any “act, policy, or practice of a foreign country [that] is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” Important to note is that the same law defines “unreasonable” in very ambiguous manner simply calling it “otherwise unfair and inequitable.”

All the above puts the U.S at advantage over other countries, potentially making the rest inevitable victims should American politician(s) feel that a foreign company is putting a stiff competition against American(s), such foreign companies or individuals can easily be sanctioned by America and tactfully kicked out of business.

As Alan Sykes, a Law professor at Stanford University argued, the choice of words used in long-arm jurisdiction “Section 301 can encompass virtually any foreign government practice unilaterally deemed objectionable by the U.S.” This has huge potential to facilitate political opportunism and harmful outcomes where the U.S can freely target other competing countries.

More worrying, the U.S keeps making the use of its unfair long-arm jurisdiction purposefully wide. It has developed the so-called “effects doctrine,” meaning that jurisdiction may be exercised whenever an act occurring abroad produces “effects” in the U.S regardless of whether the actor has U.S citizenship or residency, and regardless of whether the act complies with the law of the place where it occurred!

Because politics makes players selfish, it is perhaps the right time countries globally call on the U.S to abandon laws that antagonise global trade, order and peaceful co-existence as well as free and fair competition. This is because, whether you’re U.S’ adversary or ally, individual or a foreign company, provided you’re not American or fully serving their interests, we are all candidates of this unchecked long-arm jurisdiction.

Today, the U.S has come up with different legislations which are meant to advance the long-arm jurisdiction which has potential to harm interest of foreign countries. Other legislations that have been made to further strengthen long-arm jurisdiction among others include Trading with the Enemy Act, International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.

Despite favouring the U.S, such legislations also in the long run hurt America(ns) and have potential to disrupt global chain supply and international trade. For example, despite Trump Administration targeting China, actions of Section 301 strained relations between Washington and the European Union as Trump administration twice targeted the EU using the same section.

European Union has been opposing Section 301 arguing it is inconsistent with the rules of the WTO which prompted EU to challenge it at the WTO which ruled in EU’s favour.

While tensions as a result of U.S’ tariffs which EU called illegal ended after the Biden administration negotiated a mutual cease-fire, this did not result into total termination of the offending subsidy programs in the Airbus‐​Boeing case. Whilst the Biden argues that it is Trump administration that misused section 301 of long-arm jurisdiction, Biden administration which came promising to embrace globalism seems reluctant to move away from Trump-era section 301 and appears to be in agreement with the Trump era’s America first with reports that his administration is now considering a new Section 301 case against China.  Indeed, recent reports consistently shows U.S courting Japan and the Netherlands to restrict China from accessing semiconductor manufacturing equipment.

In conclusion, as the famous Martin Niemöller would warn in his “first they came for Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.,” those who believe in fairness should stand up against America’s long-arm jurisdiction now before it is too late to have anyone to speak for us. The jurisdiction is a thing of past and is akin to colonialism. The practice is not only a major way of violating fundamental rights but has in many instances resulted into suffering and death of people. For example, as a result of the so-called long-arm jurisdiction, the U.S imposed sanctions on countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and Yemen among others. U.S based Brooking Institute estimated that as a result of American sanctions, affected countries lost abilities to effectively contain COVID-19 pandemic. In Iran alone, over13,000 people died from the COVID-19 pandemic which was worsened by U.S sanctions.

Allawi Ssemanda, PhD is a Senior Research Fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

China’s Global Development Initiative can revert IMF’s 2023 grimy global outlook

Posted on by Admin

By Marvin Hannington Kalema.

 On Tuesday this week, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released its 2023 global growth forecast in which it painted a grimy picture stressing that the world’s three largest economies will “continue to stall”, and warned “the worst is yet to come, and for many people 2023 will feel like a recession.”

Stressing that conditions could worsen significantly next year with more than a third of the world’s economy contrasting, IMF cut its 2023 global growth forecast to 2.7 percent, which is lower than the Fund’s 2.9 percent July 2022 forecast.

Further, the forecast reduced US’ growth this year to 1.6 percent which is a 0.7 percentage point downgrade if compared with the Fund’s July forecast. This drop can be attributed to an unexpected second-quarter GDP contraction in the US. For the year 2023, IMF predicted that US’ growth forecast will be 1%.

China, the world’s second largest economy on the other side is predicted to register to register a 4.4% growth in 2023, down from 4.6%.

Sky rocketing energy prices in Eurozone growth will further affect economic growth in the region with IMF predicting a 0.5% growth in 2023 which will leave the region’s key economies like Germany and Italy entering what IMF called “technical recessions.”

The IMF further argued that a promising economic future, is subject to a delicate balancing act by central banks to fight inflation without over-tightening, which could push the global economy into an “unnecessarily severe recession” and cause disruptions to financial markets and pain for developing countries.

All the above, if critically analysed, it is increasingly becoming clear that achieving United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development will be very difficult especially for developing countries.

As Chinese president Xi Jinping observed in his remarks to during the 76th session of the UN General Assembly address, “right now, COVID-19 is still raging in the world, and profound changes are taking place in human society. The world has entered a period of new turbulence and transformation. It falls on each and every responsible statesman to answer the questions of our times and make a historical choice with confidence, courage and a sense of mission.”

Arguably, the questions of our times now must answer how can the world recover from this economic meltdown without leaving any country behind? What should be done to achieve the 2030 UN Agenda for Sustainable Development?

While UN’s 2030 Agenda calls for global sustainable development, the current reality calls for more ingredients for it to achieve its main objectives.

Therefore, recalling urgent need for a better and functioning world amidst economic uncertainties as highlighted by IMF in their 2023 global outlook forecasts, embracing China’s proposed Global Development Initiative (GDI) is very important at this time since it addresses all key challenges that have potential of failing a balanced economic recovery for all countries while putting people at the centre.

Indeed, while proposing GDI, president Xi explained the “need[s] to foster global development partnerships that are more equal and balanced, forge greater synergy among multilateral development cooperation processes, and speed up the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” He reasoned those challenges like global economic meltdown, and food and energy insecurity are likely to hinder the achievement of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development due to economic recoveries countries are taking.

Specifically, Xi explained that different countries have resorted to individualistic economic recoveries, leaving poor and developing countries’ concerns unattended, which risks widening the south – north development gap. “We must get a good grasp of the overarching development trend in the world, firm up confidence, and act in unison and with great motivation to promote global development and foster a development paradigm featuring benefits for all, balance, coordination, inclusiveness, win-win cooperation and common prosperity,” stressed Xi.

With IMF’s warning that “a promising economic future, is subject to a delicate balancing act by central banks to fight inflation without over-tightening, which could push the global economy into an unnecessarily severe recession” which the Funder explained would “cause disruptions to financial markets and pain for developing countries,” to squarely counter this challenge, there is need central banks and governments across to work together in identifying viable and practical policies and suggestions for all.

With GDI for example, President Xi emphasized that it is a sure way for the world to a chieve a balanced development if countries agree to work together in promoting economic recovery, “For us to break through the mist and embrace a bright future, the biggest strength comes from cooperation and the most effective way is through solidarity…The hardships and challenges are yet another reminder that humanity is a community with a shared future where all people rise and fall together…” Xi noted as he introduced GDI.

In total support of Xi Jinping’s call for inclusive rather than individualistic development, one ought to note that even the preamble of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development highlights development ‘partnerships’ as one of the agenda’s five most critical areas of importance. Simply put, the agenda notes that formation of such partnerships is not only a foundational principle for all the SDGs, it is also the only viable way by which such SDGs can be effectively. This re-echoes Jinping’s assertion that SDG targets, of which global economic sustainability includes, cannot be achieved in isolation.

China’s Global Development Initiative is an example of development campaigns tailored in resonance with the UN’s SDGs hence the IMF ought to consider its promotion and sensitization in its bid to avert the impending global economic crisis. The GDI, significantly anchored on collective efforts of development manifests SDG 17 that was specifically and intentionally adopted to promote development partnerships.

This goal according to scholars like Haywood & Funke (The Sustainable Development Goals in South Africa: investigating the need for multi-stakeholder partnerships), is premised on the assertion that a successful sustainable development agenda requires partnerships between governments, the private sector and civil society. This is the exact message being pushed by Beijing’s GDI project and in light of growing selfish and individualistic development approaches that often affect the global south more adversely, all global development stake-holders must consider it.

“We need to jointly build international consensus on promoting development. It is important that we put development in front and center on the international agenda, deliver on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and build political consensus to ensure everyone values development and all countries pursue cooperation together,” added Xi.

The IMF 2023 global outlook predicts that for next year, most of developing countries people will feel like a real recession. This means that though major economies will not be much better, there is need for them not to abscond from their commitments of helping developing countries development and economic recoveries programs. Indeed, as he promoted GDI, Xi emphasized the need for developed countries to fulfill their obligations and deepen cooperation stressing that in development efforts, “no country or individual … behind.”

Today, the GDI has been cited and supported by the United Nations and other international organizations, and nearly 100 countries. Now that it seeks to address challenges IMF has pointed at, one can argue that it’s high time IMF adopted GDI as the world races to arrest global economic meltdown and build a community of common prosperity and shared prosperity.

Marvin Hannington Kalema is a Senior Research Fellow at the Development Watch Centre and a law student at University of Johannesburg, South Africa.

 

DWC

Development Watch Centre

Kampala - Uganda

ADDRESS

Plot 212, RTG Plaza,3rd Floor, Office Number C7 - Hoima Road, Rubaga

CONTACT

+256 703 380252

info@dwcug.org

FOLLOW US
© DWC - All rights reserved - Cookies Policy - Privacy Policy