Teacher Don't Teach Me Nonsense

Reality catching up with Northern Nigeria, says Bishop Kukah

Activist and head of Catholic Diocese of Sokoto State, Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah, has declared that the reality of underdevelopment is catching up with Northern Nigerian in comparison with the South.

Kukah was speaking on “Power without authority: Leadership crisis in Nigeria”, at a Nigerian Leadership Initiative (NLI) lecture in Abuja.

In a summary of his speech SaharaReporters obtained in Abuja, Kukah said that the North has so many challenges of development and it is “daybreak because the reality of the situation is obvious.”

He said while Nigeria has consistently produced office-holders, it has not produced leaders, as different people have assumed control by accident, and without preparation. 

He also observed that while the problems of this nation were not caused by President Goodluck Jonathan, it is remarkable that the rot that is being dug out in the National Assembly is happening during his time.

Turning specifically to the North, he said, “Clearly, my message for my brothers and sisters in the north is to ask ourselves, ‘what is happening?’” he said.  “And the north must also appreciate the fact that the return of government to the north in whatever shape or form is not going to solve our problem, and will not be the solution to the problem. And it’s daybreak, because the reality of the situation is obvious. This is where I feel quite disappointed by some of the utterances I have heard. I heard somebody like Alhaji Adamu Ciroma saying that the problem now is that: ‘we need a Danfodiyo to come.’”

He urged Nigerians not to give up.  “There is hope in Nigeria. I am a Bishop, I market hope. But let us be realistic, what I have seen in the Southwest. The Southwest states have developed a roadmap of where they are heading- a critical question I ask myself is: where is northern Nigeria? The north has literally and increasingly perceived to be a liability to the rest of Nigeria.

“The whole notion that somehow, by some dysfunctional philosophy, we can still line up and say: it is our turn to govern Nigeria, that is not the way the rest of the world is going. I appeal to us to appreciate the fact that the problems of this nation were not caused by President Goodluck Jonathan. But I think what is also quite fascinating is that the rot that is being dug out in the National Assembly is happening during his time.”

“Nigeria has consistently produced office holders but not leaders. Nigeria has produced through different processes, men and women who came to power and office largely by accident. Check out the list: Tafawa Balewa-Ironsi-Gowon-Murtala-Obasanjo-Shagari-Buhari-Babangida-Shonekan-Abacha-Abdusalam-Obasanjo-Yar’adua-Jonathan. None of these great men came to office with any degree of preparation or experience in governance.

Analysing the patterns of ascent to power in Nigeria, he noted that only four of the eight Nigerian Heads of State have been civilians. “The others have come to power through military conspiracy and coups. There is hardly anyone who has not come to power through very controversial circumstances, framed in allegations of electoral fraud and so on. If truth were told, these circumstances of accident and chance in coming to power have taken a toll on issues of authority and legitimacy. Good governance relates to the strategies and mechanisms adopted by state for the delivery of public, social and political good. The duty and responsibility of every state is to deliver these services to its citizens or those who legitimately enter its territories.

Bishop Kukah then offered the following questions about the nature of the Nigerian polity today.  “Can the nation’s apparatus of security contain internal threat and dissent? Do citizens feel secure as individuals, families or communities? Do they feel secure in their homes, their places of work or worship? Are their properties protected either by the state or other mediating agencies? Do the security agencies enjoy respect and co-operation among the citizens? Do citizens enjoy protection under the Constitution? Has a culture of transfer of power by constitutional means become acceptable in the country? How does the country’s legal system work? What again, is the cost of justice and do citizens generally feel that the law protects them? How do individuals, families and communities assess the rule of law? How much does justice cost the weakest members of society? Are all citizens equal before the law? Do citizens understand the constitution as a secular document with a sacred ring to it? Does the government respect Court judgment?”

Reblogged from Sahara Reporters

Is Syria being misreported?

One-Sided Reporting is Facilitating Escalation

Six Ways the Media Has Misreported Syria

by AFSHIN MEHRPOUYA

As in the case of Libya, from NY Times to Fox News, from Guardian to National Post and from Le Monde to Le Figaro, the Western mainstream media’s coverage of the Syrian conflict has been mostly simplistic and black & white with a Hollywoodian good (opposition) and evil (Syrian government) story. The basic storyline reported is: “The dictatorial Syrian government is torturing and killing Syrian protestors and civilians including women and children and that the Western counties and the Arab League want to protect these Syrian civilians”. These outlets use any information that supports their stance regardless of its source and quality, and dismiss or ignore any information that brings it to question.

The bloody suppression of protestors by the Syrian government and also instability resulting from the armed insurgency aggravated by a complex set of foreign forces, each with its own set of vested interests, have resulted in significant suffering for the people of Syria. Western media’s unquestioning, consensual, biased and melodramatic coverage of the Syrian events risks moving this conflict to a full blown war with grave consequences for the Syrian people and the region.

Here are the six ways that the Western media, across the board, have been uncritical and misleading in their coverage of the Syrian conflict:

1. What do the majority of Syrians want?

In the mainstream Western media coverage, there is an implicit assumption rarely questioned that the majority of the Syrians support the armed insurgency and that they want immediate departure of Bashar Assad. However, the only opinion poll that has been carried out by the Qatar based YouGovSiraj, since the start of the conflict claims that about 55%[1] of Syrians do not want immediate departure of Assad. The methodology for this poll is not robust. In addition, this stance might be not due to support for Assad rather, because the Syrian people are afraid of instability and civil war or because some believe in the reform intentions of Assad and still others because they might be benefiting from the existing regime. The 89% backing of the new Syrian constitution in the recent referendum with a turnout of 57% was also dismissed because of the ongoing violence on the ground and lack of independent supervision on the referendum[2].

Nonetheless, given the West’s backing of the Syrian opposition is based on the “will of the Syrian people”, for the media it is essential to expose and debate such polls and try to establish what the majority of the Syrians want before adopting a position on behalf of the Syrian people.

2. Is the Syrian National Council (SNC) and the militarized insurgency representative of the Syrian opposition?

The opposition is primarily represented by Syrian National Council (SNC) headed by a Syrian expatriate professor, Burhan Ghalioun who is based in Paris[3]. This organization which is run mostly by expatriates has been demanding foreign intervention in Syria and it rejects any sort of dialog with the Syrian government. Several independent media outlets and other Syrian opposition groups[4] have questioned SNC’s lack of transparency about its members, funding and foreign links and whether it is a legitimate representative of the Syrian opposition[5][6]. Another organization claiming to represent the opposition is the Syrian Opposition Coordination body operated from inside Syria which is against foreign intervention and is for a dialog-based solution after an end is put to the violence and the political prisoners are freed. In addition, several militarized groups operate inside Syria such as Free Syrian Army who have been engaged in an armed conflict with the Syrian army and also have been attacking government buildings and other assets. These militia are reported to be a mix of deserting soldiers, foreign mercenaries and armed civilians[7] and they are armed by cross border smuggled arms allegedly funded/provided by foreign governments including those of Saudi Arabia[8], Qatar[9].

All these organizations are non-transparent and little is known about who runs them and who they are accountable to. The media has an important unfulfilled role in exposing the governance of these organizations and their internal and foreign political sidings and ideological agenda. Currently there is no proof that such organizations represent the will of the majority or a significant part of the Syrian people or the opposition.

3. How many casualties and killed by whom?

There have been casualties due to government suppression of civilian protests, due to armed conflict between government soldiers and armed militia and also due to reprisals and bombings by the armed militias. The number of total victims reported by the UN Human Rights Council which is now at 7,500, is regularly used by the Western media to refer to the extent of the repression in Syria. However, no breakdown is provided as to what percentage of this number represents civilians, what part opposition armed forces and what percentage soldiers. The UN has estimated that as of Feb 15, 2012, 1,345 Syrian soldiers have been so far killed in the conflict[10]. This is a strong indication that what is happening in Syria is an armed insurgency verging on civil war and not only a government “killing and torturing its people”. The violence perpetrated by both sides was exposed in the report prepared by Arab League monitors, which is the only existing first-hand account of what is happening on the ground [11]. However this report was mostly ignored because it did not back the black and white account of the Arab League and the Western media. The Western media should show more responsibility in its use of casualty numbers, because such numbers are highly influential in driving international public opinion about the conflict.

4. Are the information sources unbiased and credible?

Operation of foreign journalists in Syria is limited by safety concerns. Consequently the Western media has been using other sources, mainly the Syrian Observatory on Human Rights and other opposition sources. Sometimes the media simply cites “activists” or a new largely unknown entity named “Local Coordination Councils” as the source for information without further detailing its sources. Syrian Observatory on for Human Rights (SOHR), which is the most common source, was originally run by a single person (Rami Abdulrahman) from Coventry, UK. SOHR has been recently contested by a competing organization with the same name. There is an ongoing bitter fight between the two SOHRs over who is the “authentic” SOHR [12]. The latter SOHR blames the former of links with the Syrian regime and of over-reporting of soldiers’ and security officers’ death. The former SOHR states that it wants the “bloodshed to stop” and that it is against foreign intervention, while the latter states that it supports a no-fly-zone in Syria. Obviously all such opaque organizations, which are openly against the Syrian regime, have an interest in biased and inflated reporting of the casualties in the conflict. High quality journalism necessitates thorough verification of sources and including the account of both sides of the conflict to ensure a balanced coverage. However, so far the Western media has unquestioningly used the numbers and coverage of these organizations in a one-sided manner without sufficient questioning.

5. What are the interests of countries pushing for regime change and foreign intervention?

The current conflict in Syria is smeared and complicated by the interference of a long list of foreign stakeholders each with its own political agenda. Some of these interests are[13][14]:

Saudi Arabia and other GCC countriesUS and Europe: Replacing a Alaawite (Shiite) run government allied with Iran with a Sunni government more aligned with the GCC – On December 2, 2011, head of SNC, Ghalioun, said that if his party takes over Syria it would end the military relationship to Iran and cut off arms supplies to Hezbollah and Hamas, and establish ties with Israel; Distracting the international media from repression of peaceful opposition in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia[15]; Removing a government allied with Iran which will help decrease the Iranian influence in the region; Removing a government with a mostly independent or anti-Western / Israel line of politics

Israel: Removing a government allied with Iran and Hezbollah. Syria is a key country bordering with Israel with an open pro-Palestinian agenda – Ghalioun announced that his future government will cut its military ties with Iran and Hizbollah[16]; and Distracting the Middle Eastern media coverage from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Russia: Stopping the fast expansion of US allied governments in the Middle East (after Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya) and loss of one of the last of its allied Middle Eastern governments where it also has its last offshore military based

Iran: Protecting one of the last of its allied countries in the region. If the Syrian government falls, Iran would face increased isolation and pressure and risk of foreign intervention backed by the GCC, Israel and the West.

Turkey: Maintaining its influence in the post Assad regime which has geopolitical importance for Turkey

The media has so far been shallow in its coverage of the goals of the nations that are playing an active role in this conflict. The simple story is that all these governments want to “protect Syrian civilians”. However the complex mesh of vested interests is mostly left unexposed.

6. What are the “democratic credentials of the countries who want to take democracy to Syria?

One key block of countries pushing for military intervention and regime change in Syria has been the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). It is important to remember that most GCC countries including Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are run by totalitarian regimes[17] facing local protests. Saudi Arabia recently sent troops to Bahrain to suppress peaceful protests [18]. The Western media should do a better job in debating the legitimacy of such actors in pushing for democratic change and for protecting civilians in Syria.

As in the case of Libya, this one-sided coverage of the Syrian conflict is facilitating the escalation of the conflict towards a civil war and foreign military intervention which might serve the short-term interests of many foreign countries and forces but would be disastrous for the people of Syria. The Western media has a significant and grave moral responsibility to move from the current one-sided and biased media lynching of the Syrian government to a more balanced, nuanced and comprehensive approach.

Afshin Mehrpouya is an independent writer on Middle East politics and social issues. He is a university professor in Paris, France. He can be reached at mehrpouya_pl@gmail.com

Notes.

⁠
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17155349
[2] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57385423/west-calls-syrian-referendum-a-sham/
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burhan_Ghalioun
[4] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/01/us-syria-opposition-idUSTRE8200SA20120301
[5] http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=8027
[6] The Real News Network – The Syrian Opposition and the External Players; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQeWU7Gm8c
[7] http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/assads-troops-close-in-on-foreign-mercenaries
[8] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/24/saudi-arabia-backs-arming-syrian-opposition
[9] http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/
[10] http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session19/A-HRC-19-69.pdf
[11] http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf
[12] http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=29518
[13] http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB04Ak01.html
[14] http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=8027
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%932012_Saudi_Arabian_protests
[16] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204397704577070850124861954.html
[17] http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2010
[18] http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3164933.htm

Back soon..

This is to say "Thank you" to all those who have taken the time to write to me, those who have wondered why I've not posted on this blog for a while and enquired about my well being. Just to say that I am well and am currently in the process of retrieving my blogging hat so that I can put it back on. That hat was blown off my head by a turbulent whirlwind in my life, from which I'm only now beginning to emerge. I greatly appreciate the concern that has been shown during the period of my absence. Someone so kindly said to me in an email, "I just wanted you to know you are missed". 

I feel valued, and this is part of what makes the blogging worthwhile. I expect to be back soon.

Thank you so much.

Homo what?

The African/ Caribbean opposition to homosexuality, is somewhat disheartening.

I read this article that seems to include a lot of what is currently circulating as valid reasons for opposition of a basic human right.

Here is the article.

Link to the article called "Homo what?"

I won’t address all points, as the author covers other topics like female prostitution and child sex.

1) Changing the “natural order”.Sex has been around as long as marriage has. Homosexuality is not a recent invention. It was not imported into Africa, indigenous cultures were already familiar with it.  There was no issue, then the Europeans came and brought their Victorian values, which outlawed homosexual behaviour. This is what the author is referring to by the “natural order”.

This means there was a time, when heterosexual couplings and homosexual couplings co-existed. The foundation of “heterosexual marriage”, did not dissolve. It continued, so why now when homosexuals are calling for their rights to be respected, heterosexuals view this as a threat?

2) What is this “moral” meltdown in the West the author is referring to?  What makes African/or Caribbean people more “moral”, is it poverty?  Many social vices which exist in the “West” exist in Africa/Caribbean also. You name it drug abuse, alcoholism, child abuse, spouse abuse, you name it, it exists.  So this idea, that the “West” is somehow morally worse for recognising that sexual minorities have rights too doesn’t make them any more morally worse than people elsewhere. On the contrary by recognising the basic human right to freedom and equality, makes them a better society in my opinion

Link for article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

3) Defiance for the sake of defiance, is meaningless. African countries are using the stand-off with Britain and other “Western” nations  by denying and in many cases actively persecuting homosexuals as something to be proud of. They should separate defiance from reason, then re-think whether defiance is  wise and sensible. It is disposable worthless political capital. When famine or natural disaster strikes, where is their defiance then?

4) It is true, that same sex relationships without intervention don’t produce children. As we all know there are ways to have children; by coupling with the opposite sex specifically for that purpose or medical intervention like artificial insemination.

African countries are not lacking children, they are not facing a shrinking population. In the case of Nigeria, there are too many people.

But because a union/marriage doesn’t produce children, that is no reason for denying same sex couplings? According to this argument then, any childless heterosexual couple should have their marriage forcibly dissolved. Which would be totally wrong and unnecessary. So why is it accepted for same sex attracted persons?

5) “More than a purely private decision, intimate pair bonding is a public commitment to conform to the valid interest of society reflected by law and the Law is a sieved collection of society's principles, attitudes and values to build a secular cathedral that serves as a sanctum for all”

This statement totally dehumanises marriage. According to this statement, freedom of choice and emotions have nothing to do with it. What a dreary of unwanted existence!

They talk about building a secular cathedral that serves as a sanctum for all. I thought secular societies, differentiate between religion and the state.  One of the main pillars of opposition to gay rights/homosexual rights is that it is opposed to the religion as practiced in those societies. Yet these societies claim to be democratic and inclusive, which they are not. So I’m not too sure of what the author means by that statement. It seems to be filled with inconsistencies. (They talk of a secular cathedral, when they make no distintction between religion and the state. They mention the use of "all", when they don't wish to include everyone).

6) They go on to talk about the need to identify who they are and what they stand for. It would be interesting to see what label they would use for themselves. As things stand now they certainly aren’t democractic, or inclusive or egalitarian.

7) According to the author, “the foundational flaw in the homosexuality argument is their inability to show, why the children of heterosexuals should be allowed to fill the void” – to use her words.

Obviously checks have to be put in place before any orphan or homeless child is sent to a foster home. True in the “poisoned” atmosphere in Africa this will be very challenging to find individuals who are just looking at the facts, and nothing else (but it is not impossible).

Just because a child is raised in a homosexual home doesn’t mean they will turn out homosexual. Similarly, not all heterosexual homes have children who turn out to be heterosexual. As long as no abuse is occurring, and that the interests of the child are better served by being with a foster family than being left to languish in state institutions, then this shouldn’t be a problem.

This whole issue has become blown out of all proportion, and people should take a step back and assess things with a clear and reasoned mind. Rather than throwing insults and going on the rampage to attack sexual minorities, be it physically or using the law.

Apologies

Just to let everyone know that I'm fine and expect to be back shortly. My apologies for the unplanned absence from the blog..

Anengiyefa