WELCOME TO THE SWORD OF TRUTH

The blog is design to addressing pressing global issues, thus serving as a medium for the voices of the voiceless in the humane quest of making our world a better and safer place for all of humanity. In a world confronted with daunting socio-economic and socio-political challenges, the blog will also provide compelling prescriptive policy measures for national, international and individual actors across the global political landscape.

President Jammeh’s 64th United Nations General Assembly Speech - A Critical and Objective Analysis

2009 October 7
by SOFA JAWARO

When one critically and objectively analyze President Jammeh’s 64th United Nations General Assembly Speech from a contemporary modern global political perspective, it could be argued that the charismatic Gambian leader spurred compelling relevant arguments on Partnerships in Global governance, Peace and Security, Africa in the modern world and the relation of developing nations and global economic partners, and the contentious plight of the Palestinian people. He also defended the interest of The Gambia through his foreign policy, but failed short in diplomatic language, and using the occasion as an opportunity to bridge the controversies surrounding his administration.

On partnerships in Global Governance and development, President Jammeh called for greater unity, partnerships and collaborations among nations –small or large- poor or rich- one that is based on mutual respect, understanding under the framework of justice and the rule of law. Taking an in-depth analysis of the global political landscape, the Gambian leader could not have said it better, as the world has indeed changed – Change that requires greater cooperation among nations to enable us deal with global economical, political and social challenges and contradictions. Numerous scholars of contemporary global affairs made similar arguments that only through openness, cooperation and partnerships in global governance and could we effectively deal with Peace and Security challenges of our times. This according to several analysts would include equal representation and equal voices in the United Nations as the world governing body. The Gambian leader only failed short to use the occasion in building his image as a champion of justice and the rule of law. He could have used the international occasion to bridge the divide by apologizing to all victims of alleged human rights violations under his regime. That would only make him a strong leader and pave a way for The Gambia to come to terms with its past.

Sparring on the plight of Africa and developing nations in the modern world, President Jammeh’s argument falls right on the trajectories of history. Although institutional failures in modern day African governments could take some of the brunt, post-colonial Africa has been designed as a colonial instrument of exploitation. Africa’s relations with Multinational cooperation’s are not based on openness, trust, mutual respect and interest. The Gambian leader made a compelling argument, and ending Africa’s image as a neo-colonial exploitative unit is the first step in confronting the continents challenge. And that could only be attained by taking leadership and ownership through accountability and transparency based on mutual interest.

President Jammeh’s argument falls along similar reasoning with several contemporary modern scholars, who argued that relations with Global Financial Institutions and Multinational Cooperation has been built around controversial policies, thus propelling many African countries in huge debt burdens. For example citing Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, Argentina, and Sub-Saharan Africa in his 2002 book, Globalization and its Discontents, the contemporary modern economist Joseph Stiglz accuses the IMF of placing flawed economic demands on developing nations which have demonstrably resulted in further economic ruin for many of those nations which have sought aid at the doorstep of the IMF (Eichengreen, 2002). Joseph Stiglz argued that the implementation of conditional IMF economic policy in exchange for much-needed financial aid resulted in total collapses of those nations financial institutions. By making such an argument at the 64th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, the Gambian leader could not have said it better.

The only observation with this part of President Jammeh’s argument is the standard of diplomatic language used in his characterization of Multinational Co-operations. He therefore fell short by referring to Multi-National co-operations as “locusts,” and the United Nations as an “Animal Farm.” Such a language should be left for scholars to use, but not a Head of State. The use of diplomatic language in the international diplomatic arena is critical as it has a direct impact on the image of a leader and a nation. Hopefully, President Jammeh’s speech writers would take concrete steps to ensure that proper diplomatic language is used in all his forthcoming speeches at International Functions.

On the question deadly diseases such as HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis, President Jammeh must be commended for acknowledging global efforts and calling on support for International Research on the use of traditional medicine in confronting the menaces of diseases in Africa. This has indeed manifested the President dropping his previous claims of curing aids and seeking for a collective global support for traditional treatments using theories and hypothesis of modern science. By boldly using the United Nation General Assembly as a venue to do so, the Gambian leader manifested courage and commitment to the global quest of tackling the menaces of deadly diseases.

Addressing the contentious plight of the Palestinians, President Jammeh’s call for respecting a two state solution, as crafted by the International Community falls on the right path of history. It could be rightfully argued that the inconsistency of the International community and failure to handle the crisis with honesty, openness and respect is what has dragged on the conflict for so long. Israel must put an end to continuous settlement of Palestine Territory, and Palestine must also end rocket attacks on Israel.

Chronicling global Peace and Security, President Jammeh’s call for international cooperation in finding peaceful solutions to conflicts around the world is indeed timely. With the global financial meltdown taking its toll on communities around the world, greater cooperation in dealing with conflicts such as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine/ Israel, Darfur, Sudan, and the delicate nuclear impasse with Iran, is what the world needs. International assistance and cooperation in bridging the divide in nations with volatile political landscapes is also needed at such times.

The Gambian leader only fail short to use this occasion as an opportunity of appealing to the World Body, to assist in bridging the political divide in The Gambia through a national reconciliation. The occasion was indeed an opportunity for President Jammeh to usher in a new chapter in the midst of all the controversy that surrounds his administration. He could have also used the occasion to call for greater international cooperation and support for a lasting solution to the low level insurgency in Casmance, Senegal, and the drug trade that ravaged West Africa over the years. Nonetheless the Gambian leaders call for greater international cooperation in finding peaceful solutions to conflicts must be hailed as a milestone in the annals of modern times.

Calling an end to US Sanctions against Cuba, the recognition of Taiwan as a Sovereign State, and the Sovereignty of the Kingdom of Morocco on the question of Moroccan Sahara, President Jammeh defended both his foreign policy and the interest of The Gambia. It should be noted that following sanctions in the aftermath of the Military coup that brought President Jammeh to power in 1994, bilateral relations with Cuba and Taiwan were strengthened, for the survival and security of the nation. The Gambia has since then received considerable amount of aid from Taiwan and Cuba. Cuba’s medical team is active in virtually all aspects of The Gambia’s health care system, giving considerable emphasis to preventive care (Whitney Jr, 2007). Until today, both Cuba and Taiwan continue to provide assistance in Education, Science and Technology.

From a contemporary global political analysis, President Jammeh’s call to end sanctions against Cuba falls along the trajectories of several scholarly policy arguments. Several other nations called for an end to sanctions against Cuba. Even in the United States, some legislators and policy analysts opined along similar parallels. It could therefore be argued that the Gambian leader not only defended his Foreign Policy and the interest of the Gambia, but made compelling calls that are in line with the new multi – lateral global order.

In comparison to his previous United Nations General Assembly speeches, President Jammeh demonstrated considerable leadership and knowledge whilst sparring on Partnerships in Global governance, Peace and Security, Africa in the modern world and the relation of developing nations and global economic partners, and the contentious plight of the Palestinian, and The Gambia’s Foreign Policy and Interest. The Gambian leader only failed short in his diplomatic language, the call for international assistance in bridging the political divide in The Gambia through a national reconciliation, the issue of the low – level insurgency in Casmance, Senegal, and the drug trade ravaging the sub-region.

Hopefully great lessons are learned from this experience. His overall Performance was encouraging for a Young African Leader of modern times. This is just a food for thought.

By Binneh s Minteh, Newark, New Jersey

The author is an Independent Researcher, Analyst and Consultant. He could be reached by email at bsm235@nyu.edu

“Protecting women and girls is vital to international peace”-Hillary Clinton

2009 October 7
by SOFA JAWARO
On Wednesday, September, 30th, 2009, United States Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton chaired a United Nations Security Council session for the adoption of a Resolution giving stronger mandate to protect women and girls in conflicts, at the Security Council Chamber of the United Nation.Following her Introduction of the Resolution and the unanimous vote of the council supporting the said resolution, Document s/2009/489 Report containing UNSCR 1820 was adopted as UNSCR 1888, 2009.

In her remarks after adoption of the resolution, she cited the protection of women and girls as vital to International Peace and Security. In view of the fact that violence against women and girls has not diminished, thus posing challenges she warned, it is the collective responsibility of the International Community to provide protection.

Citing her experiences at The Democratic Republic of Congo, and the situations in Sudan and Liberia, she noted that considerable progress has been made, but lots remain to be achieved. She opined that the resolution calls for the Secretary General to deploy a team of Experts; governments to introduce mechanisms strengthening judicial processes; gives a new and renewed peace-keeping mandate; expertise in peace-keeping through training, and more women to serve as peace-keepers.

Acknowledging President Obama’s United Nations General Assembly Speech that calls on nations to confront the Protection of women and girls as a major challenge, she warned that the relative peace achieved in GOMA must be an example for the world to emulate.

The United Nations Secretary General, Ban ki-Moon also emphasized that the UN’s commitment to enforce UNSCR1820, Gender equality, and the empowerment of women will be a core of the United Nations agenda. He urged nations to end violence against women, end impunity and redouble efforts in protecting women.

Using the 28th, September, 2009 violent political rupture in Guinea-Conakry, the French Minister of State and Cooperation emphasized the collective action of the International Community as a prerequisite of ending impunity. Condemning the violent sexual raping of women and girls in Guinea –Conakry, he called on the United States and the Security Council for action against perpetrators.

Security council representatives of The United Kingdom, Costa-Rica, Mexico, Austria, Japan, Libya, Burkina-Faso, Uganda, Russia, Vietnam, Turkey, Croatia, China and Vietnam all welcomed adoption of resolution as a milestone in the annals of modern times.

The overwhelming support ushering adoption of said resolution is welcoming news for Global civil society organizations. Hopefully the protection of women and girls in conflict and conflict –prone societies will be at the apex of national agendas of modern times.

President Obama’s Historic Address to The United Nations

2009 September 23
by SOFA JAWARO

In a historic address to the United Nations, President Obama pondered the realities of modern times citing partnerships in international development and global security as compelling prescriptive measures in dealing with challenges of the 21st century.

Chronicling peace and security, good governance and effective institutions, human rights,economic and political freedom, he reminded governments and leaders about the importance of effective deliverance in meeting obligations as public officials.

The speech was indeed not only timely, but in touch with realities of our changing world. A dynamic President Obama used the occasion to further decipher the challenges of climate change and Americas commitment in taking a leadership role in confronting the the hazards of climate change. Please find below President Obama’s speech in Full Text. The speech is titled “Responsibility for our Common Future.”

“Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentleman: it is my honor to address you for the first time as the forty-fourth President of the United States. I come before you humbled by the responsibility that the American people have placed upon me; mindful of the enormous challenges of our moment in history; and determined to act boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad.

I have been in office for just nine months, though some days it seems a lot longer. I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted – I believe – in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences, and outpaced by our problems. But they are also rooted in hope – the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change.

I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.

Like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interest of my nation and my people, and I will never apologize for defending those interests. But it is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009 – more than at any point in human history – the interests of nations and peoples are shared.

The religious convictions that we hold in our hearts can forge new bonds among people, or tear us apart. The technology we harness can light the path to peace, or forever darken it. The energy we use can sustain our planet, or destroy it. What happens to the hope of a single child – anywhere – can enrich our world, or impoverish it.

In this hall, we come from many places, but we share a common future. No longer do we have the luxury of indulging our differences to the exclusion of the work that we must do together. I have carried this message from London to Ankara; from Port of Spain to Moscow; from Accra to Cairo; and it’s what I will speak about today. Because the time has come for the world to move in a new direction. We must embrace a new era of engagement based on mutual interests and mutual respect, and our work must begin now.

We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. Speeches alone will not solve our problems – it will take persistent action. So for those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions that we have taken in just nine months.

On my first day in office, I prohibited – without exception or equivocation – the use of torture by the United States of America. I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example.

We have set a clear and focused goal: to work with all members of this body to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies – a network that has killed thousands of people of many faiths and nations, and that plotted to blow up this very building. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we – and many nations here – are helping those governments develop the capacity to take the lead in this effort, while working to advance opportunity and security for their people.

In Iraq, we are responsibly ending a war. We have removed American combat brigades from Iraqi cities, and set a deadline of next August to remove all of our combat brigades from Iraqi territory. And I have made clear that we will help Iraqis transition to full responsibility for their future, and keep our commitment to remove all American troops by the end of 2011.

I have outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. In Moscow, the United States and Russia announced that we would pursue substantial reductions in our strategic warheads and launchers. At the Conference on Disarmament, we agreed on a work plan to negotiate an end to the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. And this week, my Secretary of State will become the first senior American representative to the annual Members Conference of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Upon taking office, I appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, and America has worked steadily and aggressively to advance the cause of two states – Israel and Palestine – in which peace and security take root, and the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians are respected.

To confront climate change, we have invested 80 billion dollars in clean energy. We have substantially increased our fuel-efficiency standards. We have provided new incentives for conservation, launched an energy partnership across the Americas, and moved from a bystander to a leader in international climate negotiations.

To overcome an economic crisis that touches every corner of the world, we worked with the G-20 nations to forge a coordinated international response of over two trillion dollars in stimulus to bring the global economy back from the brink. We mobilized resources that helped prevent the crisis from spreading further to developing countries. And we joined with others to launch a $20 billion global food security initiative that will lend a hand to those who need it most, and help them build their own capacity.

We have also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We have joined the Human Rights Council. We have signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals. And we address our priorities here, in this institution – for instance, through the Security Council meeting that I will chair tomorrow on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and through the issues that I will discuss today.

This is what we have done. But this is just a beginning. Some of our actions have yielded progress. Some have laid the groundwork for progress in the future. But make no mistake: this cannot be solely America’s endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone. We have sought – in word and deed – a new era of engagement with the world. Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.

If we are honest with ourselves, we need to admit that we are not living up to that responsibility. Consider the course that we are on if we fail to confront the status quo. Extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world. Protracted conflicts that grind on and on. Genocide and mass atrocities. More and more nations with nuclear weapons. Melting ice caps and ravaged populations. Persistent poverty and pandemic disease. I say this not to sow fear, but to state a fact: the magnitude of our challenges has yet to be met by the measure of our action.

This body was founded on the belief that the nations of the world could solve their problems together. Franklin Roosevelt, who died before he could see his vision for this institution become a reality, put it this way – and I quote: “The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man, or one party, or one Nation…. It cannot be a peace of large nations – or of small nations. It must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world.”

The cooperative effort of the whole world. Those words ring even more true today, when it is not simply peace – but our very health and prosperity that we hold in common. Yet I also know that this body is made up of sovereign states. And sadly, but not surprisingly, this body has often become a forum for sowing discord instead of forging common ground; a venue for playing politics and exploiting grievances rather than solving problems. After all, it is easy to walk up to this podium and to point fingers and stoke division. Nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles, and absolving ourselves of responsibility for our choices and our actions. Anyone can do that.

Responsibility and leadership in the 21st century demand more. In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional division between nations of the south and north makes no sense in an interconnected world. Nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long gone Cold War.

The time has come to realize that the old habits and arguments are irrelevant to the challenges faced by our people. They lead nations to act in opposition to the very goals that they claim to pursue, and to vote – often in this body – against the interests of their own people. They build up walls between us and the future that our people seek, and the time has come for those walls to come down. Together, we must build new coalitions that bridge old divides – coalitions of different faiths and creeds; of north and south, east and west; black, white, and brown.

The choice is ours. We can be remembered as a generation that chose to drag the arguments of the 20th century into the 21st; that put off hard choices, refused to look ahead, and failed to keep pace because we defined ourselves by what we were against instead of what we were for. Or, we can be a generation that chooses to see the shoreline beyond the rough waters ahead; that comes together to serve the common interests of human beings, and finally gives meaning to the promise embedded in the name given to this institution: the United Nations.

That is the future America wants – a future of peace and prosperity that we can only reach if we recognize that all nations have rights, but all nations have responsibilities as well. That is the bargain that makes this work. That must be the guiding principle of international cooperation.

Today, I put forward four pillars that are fundamental to the future that we want for our children: non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.

First, we must stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and seek the goal of a world without them.

This institution was founded at the dawn of the atomic age, in part because man’s capacity to kill had to be contained. For decades, we averted disaster, even under the shadow of a super-power stand-off. But today, the threat of proliferation is growing in scope and complexity. If we fail to act, we will invite nuclear arms races in every region, and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine.

A fragile consensus stands in the way of this frightening outcome – the basic bargain that shapes the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. It says that all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy; that nations with nuclear weapons have the responsibility to move toward disarmament; and those without them have the responsibility to forsake them. The next twelve months could be pivotal in determining whether this compact will be strengthened or will slowly dissolve.

America will keep our end of the bargain. We will pursue a new agreement with Russia to substantially reduce our strategic warheads and launchers. We will move forward with ratification of the Test Ban Treaty, and work with others to bring the Treaty into force so that nuclear testing is permanently prohibited. We will complete a Nuclear Posture Review that opens the door to deeper cuts, and reduces the role of nuclear weapons. And we will call upon countries to begin negotiations in January on a treaty to end the production of fissile material for weapons.

I will also host a Summit next April that reaffirms each nation’s responsibility to secure nuclear material on its territory, and to help those who can’t – because we must never allow a single nuclear device to fall into the hands of a violent extremist. And we will work to strengthen the institutions and initiatives that combat nuclear smuggling and theft.

All of this must support efforts to strengthen the NPT. Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences. This is not about singling out individual nations – it is about standing up for the rights of all nations that do live up to their responsibilities. Because a world in which IAEA inspections are avoided and the United Nation’s demands are ignored will leave all people less safe, and all nations less secure.

In their actions to date, the governments of North Korea and Iran threaten to take us down this dangerous slope. We respect their rights as members of the community of nations. I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and a more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their obligations.

But if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East – then they must be held accountable. The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that Treaties will be enforced. We must insist that the future not belong to fear.

That brings me to the second pillar for our future: the pursuit of peace.

The United Nations was born of the belief that the people of the world can live their lives, raise their families, and resolve their differences peacefully. And yet we know that in too many parts of the world, this ideal remains an abstraction. We can either accept that outcome as inevitable, and tolerate constant and crippling conflict. Or we can recognize that the yearning for peace is universal, and reassert our resolve to end conflicts around the world.

That effort must begin with an unshakeable determination that the murder of innocent men, women and children will never be tolerated. On this, there can be no dispute. The violent extremists who promote conflict by distorting faith have discredited and isolated themselves. They offer nothing but hatred and destruction. In confronting them, America will forge lasting partnerships to target terrorists, share intelligence, coordinate law enforcement, and protect our people. We will permit no safe-haven for al Qaeda to launch attacks from Afghanistan or any other nation. We will stand by our friends on the front lines, as we and many nations will do in pledging support for the Pakistani people tomorrow. And we will pursue positive engagement that builds bridges among faiths, and new partnerships for opportunity.

But our efforts to promote peace cannot be limited to defeating violent extremists. For the most powerful weapon in our arsenal is the hope of human beings – the belief that the future belongs to those who build, not destroy; the confidence that conflicts can end, and a new day begin.

That is why we will strengthen our support for effective peacekeeping, while energizing our efforts to prevent conflicts before they take hold. We will pursue a lasting peace in Sudan through support for the people of Darfur, and the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, so that we secure the peace that the Sudanese people deserve. And in countries ravaged by violence – from Haiti to Congo to East Timor – we will work with the UN and other partners to support an enduring peace.

I will also continue to seek a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world. Yesterday, I had a constructive meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. We have made some progress. Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians. As a result of these efforts by both sides, the economy in the West Bank has begun to grow. But more progress is needed. We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.

The time has come to re-launch negotiations – without preconditions – that address the permanent-status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians; borders, refugees and Jerusalem. The goal is clear: two states living side by side in peace and security – a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. As we pursue this goal, we will also pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its many neighbors. In pursuit of that goal, we will develop regional initiatives with multilateral participation, alongside bilateral negotiations.

I am not naïve. I know this will be difficult. But all of us must decide whether we are serious about peace, or whether we only lend it lip-service. To break the old patterns – to break the cycle of insecurity and despair – all of us must say publicly what we would acknowledge in private. The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. And nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks over a constructive willingness to recognize Israel’s legitimacy, and its right to exist in peace and security.

We must remember that the greatest price of this conflict is not paid by us. It is paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the night. It is paid by the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own. These are God’s children. And after all of the politics and all of the posturing, this is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and security. That is a lesson embedded in the three great faiths that call one small slice of Earth the Holy Land. And that is why – even though there will be setbacks, and false starts, and tough days – I will not waiver in my pursuit of peace.

Third, we must recognize that in the 21st century, there will be no peace unless we make take responsibility for the preservation of our planet.

The danger posed by climate change cannot be denied, and our responsibility to meet it must not be deferred. If we continue down our current course, every member of this Assembly will see irreversible changes within their borders. Our efforts to end conflicts will be eclipsed by wars over refugees and resources. Development will be devastated by drought and famine. Land that human beings have lived on for millennia will disappear. Future generations will look back and wonder why we refused to act – why we failed to pass on intact the environment that was our inheritance.

That is why the days when America dragged its feet on this issue are over. We will move forward with investments to transform our energy economy, while providing incentives to make clean energy the profitable kind of energy. We will press ahead with deep cuts in emissions to reach the goals that we set for 2020, and eventually 2050. We will continue to promote renewable energy and efficiency – and share new technologies – with countries around the world. And we will seize every opportunity for progress to address this threat in a cooperative effort with the whole world.

Those wealthy nations that did so much to damage the environment in the 20th century must accept our obligation to lead. But responsibility does not end there. While we must acknowledge the need for differentiated responses, any effort to curb carbon emissions must include the fast-growing carbon emitters who can do more to reduce their air pollution without inhibiting growth. And any effort that fails to help the poorest nations both adapt to the problems that climate change has already wrought – and travel a path of clean development – will not work.

It is hard to change something as fundamental as how we use energy. It’s even harder to do so in the midst of a global recession. Certainly, it will be tempting to sit back and wait for others to move first. But we cannot make this journey unless we all move forward together. As we head into Copenhagen, let us resolve to focus on what each of us can do for the sake of our common future.

This leads me to the final pillar that must fortify our future: a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.

The world is still recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. In America, we see the engine of growth beginning to churn, yet many still struggle to find a job or pay their bills. Across the globe, we find promising signs, yet little certainty about what lies ahead. And far too many people in far too many places live through the daily crises that challenge our common humanity – the despair of an empty stomach; the thirst brought on by dwindling water; the injustice of a child dying from a treatable disease, or a mother losing her life as she gives birth.

In Pittsburgh, we will work with the world’s largest economies to chart a course for growth that is balanced and sustained. That means vigilance to ensure that we do not let up until our people are back to work. That means taking steps to rekindle demand, so that a global recovery can be sustained. And that means setting new rules of the road and strengthening regulation for all financial centers, so that we put an end to the greed, excess and abuse that led us into disaster, and prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.

At a time of such interdependence, we have a moral and pragmatic interest in broader questions of development. And so we will continue our historic effort to help people feed themselves. We have set aside $63 billion to carry forward the fight against HIV/AIDS; to end deaths from tuberculosis and malaria; to eradicate polio; and to strengthen public health systems. We are joining with other countries to contribute H1N1 vaccines to the World Health Organization. We will integrate more economies into a system of global trade. We will support the Millennium Development Goals, and approach next year’s Summit with a global plan to make them a reality. And we will set our sights on the eradication of extreme poverty in our time.

Now is the time for all of us to do our part. Growth will not be sustained or shared unless all nations embrace their responsibility. Wealthy nations must open their markets to more goods and extend a hand to those with less, while reforming international institutions to give more nations a greater voice. Developing nations must root out the corruption that is an obstacle to progress – for opportunity cannot thrive where individuals are oppressed and business have to pay bribes. That’s why we will support honest police and independent judges; civil society and a vibrant private sector. Our goal is simple: a global economy in which growth is sustained, and opportunity is available to all.

The changes that I have spoken about today will not be easy to make. And they will not be realized simply by leaders like us coming together in forums like this. For as in any assembly of members, real change can only come through the people we represent. That is why we must do the hard work to lay the groundwork for progress in our own capitals. That is where we will build the consensus to end conflicts and to harness technology for peaceful purposes; to change the way we use energy, and to promote growth that can be sustained and shared.

I believe that the people of the world want this future for their children. And that is why we must champion those principles which ensure that governments reflect the will of the people. These principles cannot be afterthoughts – democracy and human rights are essential to achieving each of the goals that I have discussed today. Because governments of the people and by the people are more likely to act in the broader interests of their own people, rather than the narrow interest of those in power.

The test of our leadership will not be the degree to which we feed the fears and old hatreds of our people. True leadership will not be measured by the ability to muzzle dissent, or to intimidate and harass political opponents at home. The people of the world want change. They will not long tolerate those who are on the wrong side of history.

This Assembly’s Charter commits each of us, and I quote – “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women.” Among those rights is the freedom to speak your mind and worship as you please; the promise of equality of the races, and the opportunity for women and girls to pursue their own potential; the ability of citizens to have a say in how you are governed, and to have confidence in the administration of justice. For just as no nation should be forced to accept the tyranny of another nation, no individual should be forced to accept the tyranny of their own government.

As an African-American, I will never forget that I would not be here today without the steady pursuit of a more perfect union in my country. That guides my belief that no matter how dark the day may seem, transformative change can be forged by those who choose the side of justice. And I pledge that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights – for the student who seeks to learn; the voter who demands to be heard; the innocent who longs to be free; and the oppressed who yearns to be equal.

Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect. Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people, and – in the past – America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy. But that does not weaken our commitment, it only reinforces it. There are basic principles that are universal; there are certain truths which are self evident – and the United States of America will never waiver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny.

Sixty-five years ago, a weary Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the American people in his fourth and final inaugural address. After years of war, he sought to sum up the lessons that could be drawn from the terrible suffering and enormous sacrifice that had taken place. “We have learned,” he said, “to be citizens of the world, members of the human community.”

The United Nations was built by men and women like Roosevelt from every corner of the world – from Africa and Asia; form Europe to the Americas. These architects of international cooperation had an idealism that was anything but naïve – it was rooted in the hard-earned lessons of war, and the wisdom that nations could advance their interests by acting together instead of splitting apart.

Now it falls to us – for this institution will be what we make of it. The United Nations does extraordinary good around the world in feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and mending places that have been broken. But it also struggles to enforce its will, and to live up to the ideals of its founding.

I believe that those imperfections are not a reason to walk away from this institution – they are a calling to redouble our efforts. The United Nations can either be a place where we bicker about outdated grievances, or forge common ground; a place where we focus on what drives us apart, or what brings us together; a place where we indulge tyranny, or a source of moral authority. In short, the United Nations can be an institution that is disconnected from what matters in the lives of our citizens, or it can be indispensable in advancing the interests of the people we serve.

We have reached a pivotal moment. The United States stands ready to begin a new chapter of international cooperation – one that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations. With confidence in our cause, and with a commitment to our values, we call on all nations to join us in building the future that our people deserve. Thank you.

The speech is titled “Responsibility for our Common Future.” Here are President Obama’s remarks as prepared for delivery.

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentleman: it is my honor to address you for the first time as the forty-fourth President of the United States. I come before you humbled by the responsibility that the American people have placed upon me; mindful of the enormous challenges of our moment in history; and determined to act boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad.

I have been in office for just nine months, though some days it seems a lot longer. I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted – I believe – in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences, and outpaced by our problems. But they are also rooted in hope – the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change.

I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.

Like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interest of my nation and my people, and I will never apologize for defending those interests. But it is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009 – more than at any point in human history – the interests of nations and peoples are shared.

The religious convictions that we hold in our hearts can forge new bonds among people, or tear us apart. The technology we harness can light the path to peace, or forever darken it. The energy we use can sustain our planet, or destroy it. What happens to the hope of a single child – anywhere – can enrich our world, or impoverish it.

In this hall, we come from many places, but we share a common future. No longer do we have the luxury of indulging our differences to the exclusion of the work that we must do together. I have carried this message from London to Ankara; from Port of Spain to Moscow; from Accra to Cairo; and it’s what I will speak about today. Because the time has come for the world to move in a new direction. We must embrace a new era of engagement based on mutual interests and mutual respect, and our work must begin now.

We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. Speeches alone will not solve our problems – it will take persistent action. So for those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions that we have taken in just nine months.

On my first day in office, I prohibited – without exception or equivocation – the use of torture by the United States of America. I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example.

We have set a clear and focused goal: to work with all members of this body to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies – a network that has killed thousands of people of many faiths and nations, and that plotted to blow up this very building. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we – and many nations here – are helping those governments develop the capacity to take the lead in this effort, while working to advance opportunity and security for their people.

In Iraq, we are responsibly ending a war. We have removed American combat brigades from Iraqi cities, and set a deadline of next August to remove all of our combat brigades from Iraqi territory. And I have made clear that we will help Iraqis transition to full responsibility for their future, and keep our commitment to remove all American troops by the end of 2011.

I have outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. In Moscow, the United States and Russia announced that we would pursue substantial reductions in our strategic warheads and launchers. At the Conference on Disarmament, we agreed on a work plan to negotiate an end to the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. And this week, my Secretary of State will become the first senior American representative to the annual Members Conference of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Upon taking office, I appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, and America has worked steadily and aggressively to advance the cause of two states – Israel and Palestine – in which peace and security take root, and the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians are respected.

To confront climate change, we have invested 80 billion dollars in clean energy. We have substantially increased our fuel-efficiency standards. We have provided new incentives for conservation, launched an energy partnership across the Americas, and moved from a bystander to a leader in international climate negotiations.

To overcome an economic crisis that touches every corner of the world, we worked with the G-20 nations to forge a coordinated international response of over two trillion dollars in stimulus to bring the global economy back from the brink. We mobilized resources that helped prevent the crisis from spreading further to developing countries. And we joined with others to launch a $20 billion global food security initiative that will lend a hand to those who need it most, and help them build their own capacity.

We have also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We have joined the Human Rights Council. We have signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals. And we address our priorities here, in this institution – for instance, through the Security Council meeting that I will chair tomorrow on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and through the issues that I will discuss today.

This is what we have done. But this is just a beginning. Some of our actions have yielded progress. Some have laid the groundwork for progress in the future. But make no mistake: this cannot be solely America’s endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone. We have sought – in word and deed – a new era of engagement with the world. Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.

If we are honest with ourselves, we need to admit that we are not living up to that responsibility. Consider the course that we are on if we fail to confront the status quo. Extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world. Protracted conflicts that grind on and on. Genocide and mass atrocities. More and more nations with nuclear weapons. Melting ice caps and ravaged populations. Persistent poverty and pandemic disease. I say this not to sow fear, but to state a fact: the magnitude of our challenges has yet to be met by the measure of our action.

This body was founded on the belief that the nations of the world could solve their problems together. Franklin Roosevelt, who died before he could see his vision for this institution become a reality, put it this way – and I quote: “The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man, or one party, or one Nation…. It cannot be a peace of large nations – or of small nations. It must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world.”

The cooperative effort of the whole world. Those words ring even more true today, when it is not simply peace – but our very health and prosperity that we hold in common. Yet I also know that this body is made up of sovereign states. And sadly, but not surprisingly, this body has often become a forum for sowing discord instead of forging common ground; a venue for playing politics and exploiting grievances rather than solving problems. After all, it is easy to walk up to this podium and to point fingers and stoke division. Nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles, and absolving ourselves of responsibility for our choices and our actions. Anyone can do that.

Responsibility and leadership in the 21st century demand more. In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional division between nations of the south and north makes no sense in an interconnected world. Nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long gone Cold War.

The time has come to realize that the old habits and arguments are irrelevant to the challenges faced by our people. They lead nations to act in opposition to the very goals that they claim to pursue, and to vote – often in this body – against the interests of their own people. They build up walls between us and the future that our people seek, and the time has come for those walls to come down. Together, we must build new coalitions that bridge old divides – coalitions of different faiths and creeds; of north and south, east and west; black, white, and brown.

The choice is ours. We can be remembered as a generation that chose to drag the arguments of the 20th century into the 21st; that put off hard choices, refused to look ahead, and failed to keep pace because we defined ourselves by what we were against instead of what we were for. Or, we can be a generation that chooses to see the shoreline beyond the rough waters ahead; that comes together to serve the common interests of human beings, and finally gives meaning to the promise embedded in the name given to this institution: the United Nations.

That is the future America wants – a future of peace and prosperity that we can only reach if we recognize that all nations have rights, but all nations have responsibilities as well. That is the bargain that makes this work. That must be the guiding principle of international cooperation.

Today, I put forward four pillars that are fundamental to the future that we want for our children: non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.

First, we must stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and seek the goal of a world without them.

This institution was founded at the dawn of the atomic age, in part because man’s capacity to kill had to be contained. For decades, we averted disaster, even under the shadow of a super-power stand-off. But today, the threat of proliferation is growing in scope and complexity. If we fail to act, we will invite nuclear arms races in every region, and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine.

A fragile consensus stands in the way of this frightening outcome – the basic bargain that shapes the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. It says that all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy; that nations with nuclear weapons have the responsibility to move toward disarmament; and those without them have the responsibility to forsake them. The next twelve months could be pivotal in determining whether this compact will be strengthened or will slowly dissolve.

America will keep our end of the bargain. We will pursue a new agreement with Russia to substantially reduce our strategic warheads and launchers. We will move forward with ratification of the Test Ban Treaty, and work with others to bring the Treaty into force so that nuclear testing is permanently prohibited. We will complete a Nuclear Posture Review that opens the door to deeper cuts, and reduces the role of nuclear weapons. And we will call upon countries to begin negotiations in January on a treaty to end the production of fissile material for weapons.

I will also host a Summit next April that reaffirms each nation’s responsibility to secure nuclear material on its territory, and to help those who can’t – because we must never allow a single nuclear device to fall into the hands of a violent extremist. And we will work to strengthen the institutions and initiatives that combat nuclear smuggling and theft.

All of this must support efforts to strengthen the NPT. Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences. This is not about singling out individual nations – it is about standing up for the rights of all nations that do live up to their responsibilities. Because a world in which IAEA inspections are avoided and the United Nation’s demands are ignored will leave all people less safe, and all nations less secure.

In their actions to date, the governments of North Korea and Iran threaten to take us down this dangerous slope. We respect their rights as members of the community of nations. I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and a more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their obligations.

But if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East – then they must be held accountable. The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that Treaties will be enforced. We must insist that the future not belong to fear.

That brings me to the second pillar for our future: the pursuit of peace.

The United Nations was born of the belief that the people of the world can live their lives, raise their families, and resolve their differences peacefully. And yet we know that in too many parts of the world, this ideal remains an abstraction. We can either accept that outcome as inevitable, and tolerate constant and crippling conflict. Or we can recognize that the yearning for peace is universal, and reassert our resolve to end conflicts around the world.

That effort must begin with an unshakeable determination that the murder of innocent men, women and children will never be tolerated. On this, there can be no dispute. The violent extremists who promote conflict by distorting faith have discredited and isolated themselves. They offer nothing but hatred and destruction. In confronting them, America will forge lasting partnerships to target terrorists, share intelligence, coordinate law enforcement, and protect our people. We will permit no safe-haven for al Qaeda to launch attacks from Afghanistan or any other nation. We will stand by our friends on the front lines, as we and many nations will do in pledging support for the Pakistani people tomorrow. And we will pursue positive engagement that builds bridges among faiths, and new partnerships for opportunity.

But our efforts to promote peace cannot be limited to defeating violent extremists. For the most powerful weapon in our arsenal is the hope of human beings – the belief that the future belongs to those who build, not destroy; the confidence that conflicts can end, and a new day begin.

That is why we will strengthen our support for effective peacekeeping, while energizing our efforts to prevent conflicts before they take hold. We will pursue a lasting peace in Sudan through support for the people of Darfur, and the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, so that we secure the peace that the Sudanese people deserve. And in countries ravaged by violence – from Haiti to Congo to East Timor – we will work with the UN and other partners to support an enduring peace.

I will also continue to seek a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world. Yesterday, I had a constructive meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. We have made some progress. Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians. As a result of these efforts by both sides, the economy in the West Bank has begun to grow. But more progress is needed. We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.

The time has come to re-launch negotiations – without preconditions – that address the permanent-status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians; borders, refugees and Jerusalem. The goal is clear: two states living side by side in peace and security – a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. As we pursue this goal, we will also pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its many neighbors. In pursuit of that goal, we will develop regional initiatives with multilateral participation, alongside bilateral negotiations.

I am not naïve. I know this will be difficult. But all of us must decide whether we are serious about peace, or whether we only lend it lip-service. To break the old patterns – to break the cycle of insecurity and despair – all of us must say publicly what we would acknowledge in private. The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. And nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks over a constructive willingness to recognize Israel’s legitimacy, and its right to exist in peace and security.

We must remember that the greatest price of this conflict is not paid by us. It is paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the night. It is paid by the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own. These are God’s children. And after all of the politics and all of the posturing, this is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and security. That is a lesson embedded in the three great faiths that call one small slice of Earth the Holy Land. And that is why – even though there will be setbacks, and false starts, and tough days – I will not waiver in my pursuit of peace.

Third, we must recognize that in the 21st century, there will be no peace unless we make take responsibility for the preservation of our planet.

The danger posed by climate change cannot be denied, and our responsibility to meet it must not be deferred. If we continue down our current course, every member of this Assembly will see irreversible changes within their borders. Our efforts to end conflicts will be eclipsed by wars over refugees and resources. Development will be devastated by drought and famine. Land that human beings have lived on for millennia will disappear. Future generations will look back and wonder why we refused to act – why we failed to pass on intact the environment that was our inheritance.

That is why the days when America dragged its feet on this issue are over. We will move forward with investments to transform our energy economy, while providing incentives to make clean energy the profitable kind of energy. We will press ahead with deep cuts in emissions to reach the goals that we set for 2020, and eventually 2050. We will continue to promote renewable energy and efficiency – and share new technologies – with countries around the world. And we will seize every opportunity for progress to address this threat in a cooperative effort with the whole world.

Those wealthy nations that did so much to damage the environment in the 20th century must accept our obligation to lead. But responsibility does not end there. While we must acknowledge the need for differentiated responses, any effort to curb carbon emissions must include the fast-growing carbon emitters who can do more to reduce their air pollution without inhibiting growth. And any effort that fails to help the poorest nations both adapt to the problems that climate change has already wrought – and travel a path of clean development – will not work.

It is hard to change something as fundamental as how we use energy. It’s even harder to do so in the midst of a global recession. Certainly, it will be tempting to sit back and wait for others to move first. But we cannot make this journey unless we all move forward together. As we head into Copenhagen, let us resolve to focus on what each of us can do for the sake of our common future.

This leads me to the final pillar that must fortify our future: a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.

The world is still recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. In America, we see the engine of growth beginning to churn, yet many still struggle to find a job or pay their bills. Across the globe, we find promising signs, yet little certainty about what lies ahead. And far too many people in far too many places live through the daily crises that challenge our common humanity – the despair of an empty stomach; the thirst brought on by dwindling water; the injustice of a child dying from a treatable disease, or a mother losing her life as she gives birth.

In Pittsburgh, we will work with the world’s largest economies to chart a course for growth that is balanced and sustained. That means vigilance to ensure that we do not let up until our people are back to work. That means taking steps to rekindle demand, so that a global recovery can be sustained. And that means setting new rules of the road and strengthening regulation for all financial centers, so that we put an end to the greed, excess and abuse that led us into disaster, and prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.

At a time of such interdependence, we have a moral and pragmatic interest in broader questions of development. And so we will continue our historic effort to help people feed themselves. We have set aside $63 billion to carry forward the fight against HIV/AIDS; to end deaths from tuberculosis and malaria; to eradicate polio; and to strengthen public health systems. We are joining with other countries to contribute H1N1 vaccines to the World Health Organization. We will integrate more economies into a system of global trade. We will support the Millennium Development Goals, and approach next year’s Summit with a global plan to make them a reality. And we will set our sights on the eradication of extreme poverty in our time.

Now is the time for all of us to do our part. Growth will not be sustained or shared unless all nations embrace their responsibility. Wealthy nations must open their markets to more goods and extend a hand to those with less, while reforming international institutions to give more nations a greater voice. Developing nations must root out the corruption that is an obstacle to progress – for opportunity cannot thrive where individuals are oppressed and business have to pay bribes. That’s why we will support honest police and independent judges; civil society and a vibrant private sector. Our goal is simple: a global economy in which growth is sustained, and opportunity is available to all.

The changes that I have spoken about today will not be easy to make. And they will not be realized simply by leaders like us coming together in forums like this. For as in any assembly of members, real change can only come through the people we represent. That is why we must do the hard work to lay the groundwork for progress in our own capitals. That is where we will build the consensus to end conflicts and to harness technology for peaceful purposes; to change the way we use energy, and to promote growth that can be sustained and shared.

I believe that the people of the world want this future for their children. And that is why we must champion those principles which ensure that governments reflect the will of the people. These principles cannot be afterthoughts – democracy and human rights are essential to achieving each of the goals that I have discussed today. Because governments of the people and by the people are more likely to act in the broader interests of their own people, rather than the narrow interest of those in power.

The test of our leadership will not be the degree to which we feed the fears and old hatreds of our people. True leadership will not be measured by the ability to muzzle dissent, or to intimidate and harass political opponents at home. The people of the world want change. They will not long tolerate those who are on the wrong side of history.

This Assembly’s Charter commits each of us, and I quote – “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women.” Among those rights is the freedom to speak your mind and worship as you please; the promise of equality of the races, and the opportunity for women and girls to pursue their own potential; the ability of citizens to have a say in how you are governed, and to have confidence in the administration of justice. For just as no nation should be forced to accept the tyranny of another nation, no individual should be forced to accept the tyranny of their own government.

As an African-American, I will never forget that I would not be here today without the steady pursuit of a more perfect union in my country. That guides my belief that no matter how dark the day may seem, transformative change can be forged by those who choose the side of justice. And I pledge that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights – for the student who seeks to learn; the voter who demands to be heard; the innocent who longs to be free; and the oppressed who yearns to be equal.

Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect. Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people, and – in the past – America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy. But that does not weaken our commitment, it only reinforces it. There are basic principles that are universal; there are certain truths which are self evident – and the United States of America will never waiver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny.

Sixty-five years ago, a weary Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the American people in his fourth and final inaugural address. After years of war, he sought to sum up the lessons that could be drawn from the terrible suffering and enormous sacrifice that had taken place. “We have learned,” he said, “to be citizens of the world, members of the human community.”

The United Nations was built by men and women like Roosevelt from every corner of the world – from Africa and Asia; form Europe to the Americas. These architects of international cooperation had an idealism that was anything but naïve – it was rooted in the hard-earned lessons of war, and the wisdom that nations could advance their interests by acting together instead of splitting apart.

Now it falls to us – for this institution will be what we make of it. The United Nations does extraordinary good around the world in feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and mending places that have been broken. But it also struggles to enforce its will, and to live up to the ideals of its founding.

I believe that those imperfections are not a reason to walk away from this institution – they are a calling to redouble our efforts. The United Nations can either be a place where we bicker about outdated grievances, or forge common ground; a place where we focus on what drives us apart, or what brings us together; a place where we indulge tyranny, or a source of moral authority. In short, the United Nations can be an institution that is disconnected from what matters in the lives of our citizens, or it can be indispensable in advancing the interests of the people we serve.

We have reached a pivotal moment. The United States stands ready to begin a new chapter of international cooperation – one that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations. With confidence in our cause, and with a commitment to our values, we call on all nations to join us in building the future that our people deserve. Thank you.”

Foreign Policy, Dev. Aid & Security:The implications for Sanctioning Aid on poverty ravaged Gambia?

2009 September 21
by SOFA JAWARO

In the most recent studies of small states, modern contemporary scholars of international affairs have argued that the best way to ward-off failure for resource-poor, and aid dependent small states is engagement to nurture institutions posing threats to socio-economic and socio-political architectures of governance. The case of minuscule resource poor Gambia must be no exception to such modern contemporary analysis, in the study of small state politics and transformations.

Over the past decade, The Gambia has undergone a barrage of sanctions as a result of internal political transformations protected by the international doctrine of Sovereignty – non-interference in the internal affairs of nation states.

It could be recalled that following the military coup of July, 22nd 1994, a suspension of developmental aid by developmental partners (The European Union (EU), The United States (US), The International Monetary Fund (IMF), The World Bank (WB), was the characteristic of Gambia’s relation with donors. The argument behind such decisions was based on deeply rooted institutional modus operandi; the lack of democratic deficits, as the driving factor. Aid was withheld until donors were convinced that the Gambia successfully embarked on proper democratic reforms through a national leverage of elections.

Even the Office of The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)-Gambia Branch, which provides millions of Dollars of Development Aid in agricultural and private sector development, was moved to Dakar in the aftermath of the coup. The decision, though inconsistence with eligibility criteria’s guiding aid, it is the Gambian people who suffered from the brink of the brunch. Such developmental aid should only be suspended for small states when there is a wide scale violent political instability threatening peace, and the functioning dynamism of citizens, and the private sector in general.

In the interim periods that marred the suspension of aide, what implications did that have for The Gambia? What lessons have donors learned from the Sanctions? And is suspending aide our best way of bringing about democratic changes for fragile and resource –poor small states?

These are some of the questions that all donors and other actors across the political landscape of The Gambia must objectively ponder.

Research in the study of small states showed that when resource- poor and aid dependent small states are confronted with sanctions, they are faced with no alternative, but defiance and a hostile foreign policy. Their foreign policy along the global political spectrum shifts for legitimate reasons of survival, stability and security. In the Gambia, the young military-leaders understood that maintaining and providing the means for the institutions of the country was a determining factor in safe guarding the nation’s identity as a sovereign state.

When national reserves were exhausted, and there were no other development aid from donors, a hostile foreign policy towards donor countries, and aide from new developmental partners was the epitome of Gambia’s development and security agenda. Using the theoretical analysis by Gottwald and McGowan, The Gambia’s foreign policy shift at the time was purely an adaptation to external events in order to secure satisfactory performance of domestic structures – The Executive, the Judiciary, The Legislative and The Private and Public sectors notably.

Although some scholars contend such foreign policy shift to be irrational, one could argue that The Gambia’s foreign policy at the time was one rational policy shift that any government would adopt in guaranteeing security and stability. And all these could only be attained through funding from aid, to support all the logistics involved. Suspending aid in the aftermath of the July, 22nd 1994 military coup was therefore not necessary, because The Gambia badly need that aid as a resource-poor aid- dependent state in a fragile political region that was dealing with the civil wars of Liberia and Sierra-Leone, and political instability in neighboring Casamance, Senegal and Guinea – Bissau. Even though a relative amount of aid was coming from Taiwan, Venezuela and the league of Arab nations, the Gambia was ranked 161 out of 174 countries worldwide (HDR, 2000), with a Human Development Index of 0.3987 and 64% of its population living below the poverty line (1998). Even reports from both the World Bank and The International Monetary Fund in the periods from 1994 – 2002 indicated an off-set in trade, foreign investment, and growth.

There is no doubt that challenges in the socio-economic and socio-political landscape of The Gambia are still abound. Human rights concerns have become an abysmal concern for donors. For example in June 2006, The Board of Directors of the U.S Millennium Challenge Compact Program suspended Gambia’s eligibility as a result of “documented evidence of human rights abuses, increased restrictions on political rights, civil liberties and press freedom, as well as worsening economic policies and anti-corruption efforts.”

Nonetheless, in view of the Gambia’s economic background as a poor resource aid dependent country, and its fragile political architecture, suspending The Gambia’s eligibility for the US Millennium Challenge Compact Program is not necessary. The Gambia needs that aid especially at a time when the global economic meltdown continues to adversely shape developing economies across the world. Such an aid could have a positive impact on both the socio-economic and socio-political structures of the country, thus strengthen institutions to effectively deliver through respective programs.

Taking an in-depth analysis of political transformations in the aftermath of July 22nd 1994 military coup, one could satisfactorily contend that apart from human rights issues; notably press freedom, the Gambia has made considerable progress in agriculture, health care, education, infrastructural development and communication technologies. Progress has also been made in the empowerment of youth and women in particular; United Nations Millennium Development Goals that government is progressively confronting. The countries armed forces have also played excellent roles in peace-keeping operations and missions around the world - notably peace missions in Sierra-Leone, Liberia, Somalia, Sudan and Bosnia.

Reports further indicate that the administration of President Jammeh have a zero tolerance policy in dealing with corruption. Some analysts contend that the spade of hiring’s and firings of Secretary of States, and other top government officials is the working effectiveness of The Gambia governments quest of confronting corruption at all levels of governance. Six journalists who were jailed for criticizing the President have been freed, according to a statement released by The Government. A new agreement with the International Committee of the Red Cross, to include international humanitarian law as a part of the country’s military training curriculum has also been signed.

These are important developments that donors could build upon to usher in positive and constructive strategies of engaging the Gambia Government, but not sanctions or threats of sanctioning developmental aid (For example supporting a policy of national reconciliation for the nations divided political actors). Sanctioning aid will only paralyze domestic structures and the consequences tantamount to instability, political unrest and subsequently state failure just as seen happened in Haiti.

Foreign Policy, developmental aid and security are three reinforcing agents that should make The Gambia’s developmental agenda, stability and survival a concern for all donors. From the contemporary scholarly studies on Political transformations in Haiti and The Dominican Republic, it is important to understand that for The Gambia to succeed in overcoming its democratic deficit and other compounding challenges; developmental aid with positive and constructive engagement is the most rational strategy for institutional reforms and growth across the minuscule resource poor West African nation.

From the experiences of aid-dependent small states, the world must understand Haiti’s political failures as a result of military involvement, isolation and sanctions by developmental partners, and the failure to confront endemic corruption. In comparison to The Gambia, Haiti is a resource –poor aid-dependent country with paralyzed state institutions caused by suspended developmental aid, and rival class structures; the resultant effect of institutionalized corruption. In the effort of making policy decisions on developmental aid for resource poor and aid dependent small states, it is important for donors to use such experiences in reinforcing and complimenting decisions. The Gambia’s Developmental aid and security must therefore be no exception.

In view of the critical and crucial position of resource poor and aid dependent small states across the global political spectrum, restoring Gambia’s eligibility under the US Millennium Development Compact Account, reopening the USAID Banjul Branch office will only strengthen Gambia’s security and stability, and nurture the already cordial US – Gambia relations. The European Union (EU) and other donors must also continue strengthening aid along the same parables.

Change has come to the world and developmental partners must change the way they relate with the developing world. Such relations must be based on mutual respect, reasoning, practicality and realities on the ground. And relations with the Gambia must be no exception. That would only bridge the divide between the tiny minuscule resource poor nation with its challenges and contradictions. What else could one say?

The author is a Gambian independent researcher, analyst and consultant. He could be reached by email at: bsm235@nyu.edu

The euphoria surrounding Colonel Ghadafi: Must it be called a quit?

2009 September 21
by SOFA JAWARO

The transformation of the world into new political, economic and social paradigms brought to light compelling debates on issues and agendas. Notably across the global political spectrum, a shift from one position to the other ushered in scholarly debates among contemporary scholars of modern global affairs. The euphoria surrounding Libyan leader, Colonel Ghadafi has recently become one of the most debated topics, thus raising eyebrows among scholars and pundits of modern times.

Over the years whilst most Western and African media outlets have expressed pessimism over Ghadafi’s renunciation of terrorism, nuclear weapons, and his compensation of the Lockerbie bombing victims, only a few maintain optimism about the colonel’s makeover with the international community. The Libyan leader’s shifting of gears sparred the most critical debates of contemporary global affairs.

This raises the questions: Is the world treating the Libyan leader fairly, should the euphoria surrounding him be called a quit? And should he be trusted or given a chance?

From the ancient civilization, the embodiment of repentance and forgiveness as tools of development have brought to light considerable success across all spheres of societal transformation; socio-politics and socio-economic transformation. This is so because of our tolerance in disengaging ourselves from past stories. In a religious teaching at a Boston Chapel on September 5th, 2005, a contemporary scholar of modern Christian Studies once argued that:

“Our primal identity is our relation to God in our own context, and that relation to God includes relating to other people as also first related to God in their context, and only secondarily as interacting with us in our context. Our fundamental relation to other people should be to treat them as living and dying to God, whose children they are”.

The scholar’s argument falls on the right trajectories, because ‘no moral relativism lurks here, and we all stand under the judgment of God.’ At a Sermon on a mountain, Jesus warned that making deep ontological judgments on to others belongs to only God. In that same sermon on the mountain, Jesus repeatedly spoke of forgiveness. In the Bible it is quoted as:

“Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.” Matthew 5:7

In view of the aforementioned, we must understand that change has come to the world, and Colonel Ghadafi’s paradigm shift falls along those great parabolic changes of modern times. Dwelling on ones past is a societal illness that has the tendency of making us judgmental, therefore making our global quest for peace and stability difficult, if not impossible. And that is not what the world needs at these critical times.

By paying compensation to victims, opening up trade with the international community renouncing terrorism and nuclear weapons, colonel Ghadafi manifested not only culpability, but repentance and change. He therefore deserves to be given a chance, than being stigmatized as a global trotting trouble maker. Accepting him with respect and an open heart could propel our quest for global prosperity to higher heights.

As a devote Muslim, the colonel’s reconciliation with adversaries was an act deeply rooted in Islamic teachings. The Holy Qur’an cited repentance in numerous Sura’s. Notably among the Sura’s is Hood, Sura 11. In this particular Sura, The Almighty God (Allah) laid specific emphasis on repentance citing the story of Prophet Hood and his followers:

“And O my people! Ask forgiveness of your Lord and then repent to Him, He will send you (from the sky) abundant rain, and add strength to your strength, so do not turn away as Mujrimun (criminals, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah).” (Hood 11:52)

Islamic teachings make it clear that, it is better to forgive one another than to attack one another.

The Qur’an describes the Muslims as those who, avoid gross sins and vice, and when angered they forgive. Qur’an chapter 42:37 says that although the just requital for an injustice is an equivalent retribution, those who pardon and maintain righteousness are rewarded by GOD. He does not love the unjust. (Qur’an 42 :40).

Shifting gears to Judaism, The Holy Torah keeps reminding people to forgive and seek repentance. According to Rabbi Pinchas Lipne, Dean of the Hebrew Academy in San Francisco (2002), although a person who has sinned logically deserves punishment, God encourages that he acknowledge his error, confess it and sincerely resolve to improve himself to the extent that he will not repeat his offense in the future.
With doctrinal religious teachings deeply rooted in our socio-economic and socio-political activities, it is important to note that human transformation has always evolved around the parables of repentance and forgiveness.

From ancient civilization to modern times, the world has witness man’s effort in bridging dangerous divides through such parables. Even the ancient Romans and Greeks exercised some degree of repentance and forgiveness in their efforts of containing most political and social ruptures. Modern truth and national reconciliations in the aftermath of violent and deadly political conflicts speak volume. For example, truth commissions in the former Yugoslavia, Sierra-Leone, Liberia, Rwanda and Cambodia are living testaments to that reality.

Colonel Ghadafi may have a troubled past, however, treating him from the lessons of history, and as prescribed in the doctrines of all major religions, is our best way of emboldening efforts to foster global peace, security and prosperity.

Nonetheless, as change continues creeping along the shores of world communities and societies, it is incumbent upon us to change the way we think, perceive others, and do things. It is also important to understand that accepting those changes constitutes conformity to the realities of our rapidly transforming world. And the colonel Ghadafi euphoria must be no exception to that reality.

Calling that euphoria a quit, and accepting the Libyan leader with honesty, respect, and an open heart, would only make us a better people, thus strengthen our quest for a better world.

AFRICA: Political, Economical and Social Empowerment of Women – A Key Developmental Agenda for Governments.

2009 September 21
by SOFA JAWARO

If anyone should argue that empowering women in Africa is creeping in, but at a slow pace, that argument would fall right on the continent’s evolutionary development pattern. In the years following the birth of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG), and the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1325 ( Women Peace and Security), and 1820 ( Sexual Violence in situations of armed conflict), a global call to bridge the gender parity, empowering women to take leadership and decision making roles, in the socio-political and socio-economic landscape of communities across the world has since then taken a forefront of development in the century.

The African Union, regional organizations and national governments supported by civil society, have since then enacted and put into law, legislations calling for more women participation, and involvement, in decision making and leadership across the continent. Notably among the continental legal instruments areCEDAW, The Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women, the ECOWAS gender policy and the solemn declaration.

With the adoption of the aforementioned regional and international legal instruments, some considerable effort has been made by many governments across the continent. Countries such as Rwanda (49%), and Senegal (40%), ranked the highest in the number of women in Parliament, cabinet and other sectors within the public sphere.

The election of Ellen Sir-Leaf Johnson of Liberia (2005) as Africa’s first elected female President, the appointment of five women out of the ten African Union Commissioners, and the appointment of Mrs. Isatou Njie Saidy (1997) as The Gambia’s First Female vice-President, other women in both The Gambian Parliament and Cabinet, marks a cornerstone in bringing women to the fore of leadership and decision making across the continent.

In general, governments across the continent made considerable efforts in elevating women to decision making and leadership roles.
Does all these efforts, however suffice since the adoption and implementation of International and regional legislations to empower women? Could African governments do more to empower more women?

Following an in-depth analysis of the role of women across the continent, it is important to understand that women are not only pivotal in modern developmental agenda of the developing world, but also provides ‘a tactical space,’ across various developmental fields in reaching a consensus on topical issues such as conflict –resolution, agriculture, economic development and education. It is therefore important to understand that only adopting and implementing international and regional mechanisms would not suffice without concrete actions taken.

The gap in education is still evident in sub-Saharan Africa, where only 32 percent of women participate in the labor force and 84percent of women’s non-agricultural employment is informal, compared to 63percent of men’s, according to a 20005 United Nations report.

Violence against women is another major problem that needs to be seriously addressed by governments across the continent. The World Bank reported that rape and domestic abuse accounts for up to 5-6 percent of death among women. A United Nations 2005 report further showed that, In the Democratic Republic of Congo alone, up to 5,000 cases of rape, an average of 40 cases a day were reported by the Women’s Association in Uvira.

In a collective effort to bridge the gender parity and propel women to an apex of the continent’s developmental agenda, governments must take concerted efforts in fostering and consolidating the global Millennium Development Goals targeting women.

According to recommendations of the 1st annual African Women’s Policy Forum held in Accra in December 2008 to inform, guide, influence and monitor policy formulation;

• “Given the appallingly low representation of women at national decision making structures, governments in the region should recommit to ensuring at least 30 per cent of women in all levels of government.”
• Civil society should make overtures towards women in government and endeavor to provide technical assistance on issues that affect women in the region. A starting point should be for women in both sectors to work on the common cause of increasing the numerical representation of women at all levels of decision making.
• Women from all sectors should organize around upcoming elections in West Africa and become more engaged in pre and post electoral processes. Lessons on the roles of Ghanaian women in Ghana’s 2008 elections should be documented and shared in the region;
• Peace and security remains a high priority issue in West African countries, therefore, all actors should enhance efforts to domesticate the implementation of related peace and security instruments such as the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1325 and 1820.

In domesticating regional and international legal instruments and mechanism’s it is important for governments to not only introduce legislations into national constitutions, but effective implementation processes that will curb domestic and sexual violence against women across the continent.

In view of the recommendations, African governments must take bold and robust policy actions in bridging the gender gap. This could be achieved through collaborating with grass-roots civil society organizations in the designing and implementation of National Action Plans.

Grass roots civil society organizations such as Femmes Africa Solidarité(FAS), Women Peace and Security Network Africa (WIPSENAfrica), and the African Women’s Development Fund (AWDF) have all laid solid foundations across the continent for a strengthening of institutional mechanisms geared towards empowering women.

Femmes Africa Solidarité (FAS), for example in partnership with the national governments of The Great Lakes region and Mano River Union, have succeeded in helping the drafting of a National Action Plan for the implementation of UNSCR 1320/1820 in The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Sudan and Liberia. Thanks to FAS and partners that the world is better able to acknowledge the crucial role of women in the peace building and development in post-conflict and conflict prone societies.

From the post-colonial era to modern times, considerable success has been attained in empowering African women through capacity building and human development. Much however, needs to be done in comparison to other regions. The institutions and mechanisms to do so are already in place.

It will only take commitment on the part of national governments, and a nurturing of those institutions and mechanisms, that could bridge the gender disparity, thus propel women to the forefront of leadership and decision making at all levels of development.

The author is an Independent Researcher, Analyst and Consultant. He could be reached by email at bsm235@nyu.edu.

Global Economic Challenges: Action Plan for Africa and Least Developed Countries

2009 June 27
by SOFA JAWARO

As the global financial crisis continues shaping the economic landscape of Africa and the Least Developed Countries, a conference on an action plan for Africa and the Least Developed countries, was on Thursday, June 25th, 2009, successfully concluded at the ECOSOC Chamber, at the United Nations Headquarters in
New York.


 

The United Nations University (UNU) in collaboration with the office of the Special Adviser for Africa (OSA), and the Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries (LDC) hosted the occasion.

 

In his opening remarks Mr. Cheick Sidi Diarra, Under-Secretary-General, Special Adviser on Africa and High Representative for the LDCs, LLDCs and SIDs gave an in-depth analysis of Africa’s challenges in the midst of a global economic meltdown.

 

Citing a decline in investment, earning, commodity production, infrastructure, health and education, he emphasized that Africa and the LDCs have fallen significantly off-track in meeting the Millennium Development Goals.

 

He made emphasized on the regulation and supervision of financial sectors, sustained macro-economic reforms, adequate physical response and donor commitment as prerequisites for Africa and Least Developed Countries to effectively recover from the crisis.

 

Following Mr. Diarra’s introductory remarks, the keynote speakers H.E. Ms Asha-Rose Migro, United Nations Deputy Secretary- General, and Her Excellency Dr. Dipu Moni, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh and chair of LDCs both provided a detailed analysis of the impact of the global financial and economic crisis on Africa and Least Developed countries.

 

Brilliantly detailing a contraction in growth, decline in capital flow and foreign direct investment, drastic reduction of income, a decline in trade, imbalances in physical space and automatic stabilizers, both keynote speakers echoed the proposed restructuring of the international financial infrastructure as fundamentals to Africa’s positive emergence from the global financial crisis.

 

With emphasis on policy, they cited the commitment and cooperation of the international community as key to tackling developmental agendas of Africa and Less Developed Countries. Both speakers emphasized that meeting pledges made at the 2005 G8 summit, and the most recently 2009 concluded G20 summit will successfully enhance the developmental agenda of Africa and Least Developed Countries.

 

The keynote addresses were followed by presentation of a background paper by Mr. Wim Naude, Senior Research Fellow and Project Director, UNU World Institute for Development and Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).

 

In his presentation, Mr. Naude gave analysis on issues such as, a decline in trade; the credit crunch; risks to development; policy responses; risks in responses and the economic pitfalls to be avoided.

 

Papers on discussion of the economic crisis and the impact of the Global Financial and Economic crisis on LDC Economies could be downloaded at http://www.ony.unu.edu/media/pdfs/discussiononeconomiccrisis25june09event.pdf, and http://www.onyu.unu.edu/media/pdfs/reportonldcs25june

The presentation was followed by panel discussions. The speakers were: Mr. Alexandra Aboagye, Senior Economic Adviser, Regional Bureau for Africa (UNDP), Mr. Stephen Groff, Deputy Director, Development Cooperation Directorate, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Dr. Alhagi Bamanga Tukur, Executive President of the African Business Roundtable and Chairman of NEPAD Business Group and Mr. Roger Nord, Senior Adviser, African Department, International Monetary Fund (IMF)

Examining the role of governments, civil society and the donor community, the panelists laid emphasis on action plan for recovery, the G20 communiqué call on increase developmental aid; restructuring of the Brettonwoods Institutions; appropriate measures to increase Foreign Developmental Aid; and a reduction of indebtedness as essentials in recovering from the global financial and economic pandemonium.

What have we therefore learned from such a timely global conference?

From ancient civilization to slavery, colonialism and post-colonialism, much has been done, but a lot more needs to be done for a continent duped as the richest but inhabited by the worlds poorest.

This brings us to the theory of a scholar in contemporary African Studies. In his theory, Englebert argued that the contemporary African state is neither African, nor a state, because its origin is exogenous: it’s derived from arbitrary colonial administrative units designed as instruments of domination, oppression, and exploitation.

A careful analysis of Africa’s economic architecture, infrastructure and trajectories, rightly puts Englebert’s theoretical analysis on track.

From the post-independence era, it could be argued that so many economic systems were either imposed or adopted by African nations without carefully studying their long term implications.

Neo-liberal market systems (Free Market Economy) and Marxist-Leninists market systems (State Control Market System) are among the many that are not new to Africa. And yet Africa continues to be characterized as the world’s worst economic architecture.

After decades of foreign imposed or adopted economic systems, what Africa needs is to take ownership and leadership. This can only be done by adopting economic systems that are practicable and in touch with realities of the continent’s grass-root socio-economic architecture.  

The author is an independent researcher, analyst and consultant. He also produces The Sword of Truth at http://www.sofawarrior.blog.com .

Pop King Michael Jackson Dies at Age 50

2009 June 26
by SOFA JAWARO
As the world awaits a come back from the pop King Michael Jackson, news of his death on Thursday, June 25th, reached global media horizons with a shock.Reports indicated that the pop king died of a heart stroke after been rushed to a Los Angeles hospital.

Michael Jackson will certainly be missed for his contributions and propelling of the pop music culuture to higher heights. He was both a humanitarian, a visionary and a global icon whose talents and skills paved opportunites and set the stage for the success of many in the changing world of modern times.

Living his life in a world, where many perceived him to be what he is not, the late Michael Jackson maintained steadfastness and constructively paddled along our unknown global horizons.

Surprising the world in a come back that already sold out concert tickets from  New York to Argentina, and from London to Japan, his legacy will continue to shape generations. May his Soul Rest  in Perfect and Eternal Peace.

Gabon: The Legacy of Late President Omar Bongo

2009 June 19
by SOFA JAWARO

As times continue changing along the evolutionary pattern of life, so do evolutions across world societies and communities take shape. From ancient civilization to colonial and post-colonial era,
Africa has undergone several evolutionary patterns in all aspects of societal development, governance and innovations in modern science and technology. It was such evolutionary patterns that ended slavery and colonialism, ushering in the nouvelle paradigm of Independence and the modern states of Africa.

This was what brought the continents first-post-colonial leaders – leaders who fought for liberation and independence from colonial domination. The late President Omar Bongo was among those post colonial leaders who contributed to salvaging Africa from the caprice of colonialism.

President Bongo came to power in 1967 after succeeding the country’s first post-colonial leader who died of ill-ness after six years in power. Omar Bongo’s death on June, 8th 2009, after 42years in power, came at a time when several questions continues to be raised about the socio-economic and socio-political situation of one of Africa’s smallest, but richest mineral resource nations – it is a producer and exporter of oil, manganese, iron, wood and uranium.

How has President Bongo’s four decade rule shape the political, economical and social landscape of one of Africa’s richest resource country? What best characterizes his legacy? These are the good old questions that continue to be the heated debate among modern scholars of contemporary African Affairs.

Responding to these questions requires an in-depth analysis of Gabonese State of Affairs under the 42year rule of the late President.

President Bongo’s legacy could best be characterized as a mixed one. Although he died in the midst of controversies surrounding his administration, Mr. Bongo brought considerable progress in infra-structural development, education and innovations in technology. Politically he ruled with an iron fist, crossed dissent and heavy handedly tackle the opposition. Some analysts contend that he muzzled all opposition in ways that could best characterize Gabonese political system as a one-party pluralist-coercive democratic nation.

With oil production rate at 243,900 barrels a day, according to a 2007 estimate, more than 40% of the population remains to be under extreme poverty.  A transparency International 2008 Corruption perception report also ranked Gabon as 96 out of 180 countries.  A most recent law suit filed by Gabonese citizens in a French court to freeze assets of the late President in France, and the manifestation of discontent with President Sarkozy’s  paying of respect at Bongo’s Funeral is a testament to that reality.

The late President is believed to own luxurious hotels, resorts and other businesses in Paris and around the world at the expense of the Gabonese citizens. It has also been widely reported that the late President Bongo has groomed his son; a current Defense Minister, to succeed him

According to the United Nations Gabon 2008 Human Development Report, Gabon ranked 107th out of 179 countries, a Human Poverty Index of 20.2% ranking the country 74th out of 135 developing countries, and an HDI  of 0.729, that ranks the country 107th out of 179 countries.

President Bongo’s legacy would therefore be best remembered as one who not only fought for liberation against colonialism, but also brought some considerable development, ruled with an iron fist, muzzled his opposition, squandered the nation’s mineral wealth and unevenly distributed resources across the nation. He not only left the nation divided, but history will also continue to judge him for any rupture of the already volatile Gabonese political landscape.

 

The African Economic Outlook 2009 Report Launched at the United Nations Headquarters

2009 June 18
by SOFA JAWARO

The United Nations University (UNU) in collaboration with the UN office of the Special Adviser on Africa (OSAA), the African Development Bank (AFDB), and the United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs (DESA), successfully  completed a Panel Discussion and Launching of The African Economic Outlook 2009 Report at the ECOSOC Chamber of the United Nations  Headquarters in New York City, on Tuesday, 16th June 2009.

Giving a comprehensive data analysis of 47 countries that account for 99% of the continents Economic Output, the report provides an exposure of Africa’s economic performance and challenges, and the continents Information and communications technology infrastructures.

Following a welcoming Remarks by Mr. Patrick Hayford, Director, UN Office of the Special Adviser on Africa (OSA), an eloquent opening remarks was  made by Mr. Thomas Stelzer, the Assistant Secretary – General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs, DESA, and Mr. Jean- Marc Coicaud, Director of the United Nations University , New York Office.

The theme of the first panel discussion focused on Africa’s Macroeconomic outlook. Professor Leonce Ndikumana, Director of the African Development Bank Research Department, and the first speaker on the panel, gave an overview of Africa’s Developmental progress, challenges ahead and policy recommendations as the fundamentals of The African Economic Outlook 2009 report.

Although Dr. Ndikumana cited relative economic growth rate of up to 5% over the years, and a  downtown of 2.3% in growth as a result of the global financial and economic meltdown,  he  emphasized that  the strong backing of developmental partners and the crucial role of Africa’s emerging economic partners – China, Russia, India and Brazil, is critical to the continent’s Sustainable Developmental Agenda .

Mr. Jose Gijon, Head of the Africa and Middle East Desk, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and Mr. Alexander Aboagye, Senior Economic Advisor to the Director, Regional Bureau for Africa, UNDP, both gave a brilliant analysis of the African Economic Outlook 2009 Report. They cited the report as not only bringing together a comparative analysis of Africa’s Developmental Agenda, but also the prudent economic policies adopted by governments across the continent, growth rates in 2008, the impact of the global economic crisis, and the challenges ahead. Although concerns were raised about the focus of the report on only the continents Macro-economic output, both speakers hailed it as an optimistic scenario of Africa’s future economic performance.

The theme of the second panel was on Africa’s innovations in Information and Communications Technology (ICT), Mrs. Sala Elise Patterson, Policy Analyst/Outreach Development Center, Organization For Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) gave a detailed analysis of Africa’s Information and Communications Technology Infrastructure – growth rate of mobile phones, internet technology, e-governance, technological challenges and policy innovations. On her part, Mrs. Patterson confidently emphasize the remarkable progress made by the continent in Information and Communications Technology.

Detailing an innovative programs to connect Africa’s East and West Coast to the rest of the world with fast internet access using Fiber Optic Submarine Cables, Mrs. Patterson noted that the continent will need 66, 0000 Kilometers of fiber optics to be connected to the rest of the world.

The Gambian Born Dr. Sulayman k. Sowe, Research Fellow, UNU – Maastricht Economic and Social Research and Training Center on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT) also gave a detailed analysis of the Africa Outlook 2009 on Africa’s innovations in Information and Communications Technology. Dr. Sowe cited significant factors on policy, talents of individuals, the proliferation of GSM and mobile innovations, the fast changing internet infrastructure , open education,  open training, and initiatives of sustainable ICT growth as fundamentals to Africa’s successful evolution in Information and Communication s Technology.

In his marathon Dr. Sowe was not hesitant to point out Africa’s remarkable success and Innovations  in Information and Communications Technology. He made emphasized on training and capacity building, stumbling blocks such as regulation and deregulation, policy, connectivity and Infrastructure as prerequisites for the advancement of Information and Communications Technology. Both panel discussions were followed by an interesting and brilliant question and answer session.

The detailed African Economic Outlook 2009 report could be purchased at www.africaneconomicoutlook.org.