Friday, 10 December 2010
U.N.'s Message to Whistleblowers: "Kill the Messenger"
By Thalif Deen
After she sent a 50-page memo highly critical of Ban last July, Ahlenius says she received phone calls from "a former U.N. staff member and also a South Korean with U.S. citizenship" warning her about "acts of retaliation".
The retaliation, she was told, would come from people in "the circles around the secretary-general" and "they would spare no efforts to hit and hurt me in retaliation for my report."
In a letter to the U.N.'s chief of staff Vijay Nambiar last month, Ahlenius says: "I shared this experience with some people in and outside of the (U.N.) Secretariat and we did not agree on whether this was a friendly warning or whether it was a threat in itself."
"I chose however to interpret this (phone) conversation from the positive side and as a friendly act," she adds.
But Ahlenius stressed that Ban does not tolerate any criticism, including "constructive criticism", of the way he runs the United Nations in his capacity as its chief administrative officer.
The culture and approach is "kill the messenger", she says using, wittingly or unwittingly, an ominous metaphor to drive home her message.
In her original memo which triggered the threat, Ahlenius, a former auditor general of Sweden and until July the head of the U.N.'s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), accused the secretary-general of being non-cooperative; of exceeding his authority on certain high-level appointments; of double standards on staff dismissals; and of lacking good governance.
IPS was the only news organisation with access to the entire 50-page document which was posted on its website last July.
"I regret to say the (U.N.) Secretariat now is in a process of decay. It is not only falling apart into silos - the Secretariat is drifting, to use the words of one of my senior colleagues," Ahlenius said.
"I am concerned that we are in a process of decline and reduced relevance of the Organisation. In short, we seem to be seen less and less as a relevant partner in the resolution of world problems," she wrote.
Challenging the very leadership of Ban, she said: "You are undermining the authority of your senior advisers both by affording them short - one year - mandates and also by exercising your direct authority over the appointments of their staff."
"There is no transparency (and) there is lack of accountability. Rather than supporting the internal oversight which is the sign of strong leadership and good governance, you have strived to control it which is to undermine its position. I do not see any signs of reform in the Organisation," Ahlenius wrote in her "End of Assignment Report'.
In a seven-page rebuttal to that 50-page memo, and speaking on behalf of the secretary-general, Nambiar makes his own charges against Ahlenius.
She, in turn, counters with her own five-page response sparking a second round of a full-scale war of words.
IPS, which was given access to the two documents, has posted both memos on its website.
In his letter, Nambiar accuses Ahlenius of having chosen "to resort to misrepresentation of the record and distortion of facts".
"Particularly disturbing is the way you have chosen to allow your comments to go public even before they were brought to the notice of your colleagues," the letter says.
Nambiar blames the declining state of the OIOS and its investigative machinery on Ahleinus's "mismanagement that caused serious damage to the accountability and integrity of the Organisation."
The charge of "mismanagement" appears at least three times in the letter, including a reference to "a glaring example of mismanagement".
The letter also points out that "despite your generalized erroneous allegations, you have failed to cite any instance of the secretary-general having tried to block or obstruct any investigation, audit or evaluation activity sought to be undertaken by you."
Nambiar also questions Ahlenius's lines of authority - where they begin and where they end.
In her memo, Ahlenius raised a number of issues related to political agenda and management reform.
"As to the political agenda," rebuffs Nambiar, "I do not feel it is necessary to respond to you since it goes far beyond your audit and investigation mandate."
On issues of management reform, he bluntly tells Ahlenius: "I believe that your comments on the intensive and extensive management reforms measures of the secretary-general are far beyond the purview of your office."
In her response, Ahlenius regrets that she is "deeply disappointed by the content and tone of your letter".
"I was however warned that this would occur, if I dare challenge the secretary-general with a report that would be critical of his performance," she writes. "My first reaction to you letter is not to respond at all. However, finally, I decided to respond."
Ahlenius says that "in order to project a credible message to the world and to constitute a relevant partner for the member states in addressing the world's problems, the Organisation must be professionally managed and must be led through example."
"This administration (of Ban Ki-moon) has hardly done that and your letter is testament to the way in which constructive criticism is viewed by the secretary-general."
She also criticises Ban's efforts "to control OIOS" which she points out "is counter productive and reflects poorly on his image."
The U.N. Secretariat is "in desperate need of different management reforms and the secretary-general must himself take the concrete lead and act to assume responsibility, not to simply talk about such ambitions in his speech," she concludes.
(END)
Thursday, 9 December 2010
China's Global War on Human Rights Why Beijing is promoting a world-wide rejection of postwar international norms.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS ON The Wall Street Journal
DECEMBER 9, 2010
By JAMIE F. METZL
Mr. Metzl, the executive vice president of Asia Society, served in the State Department during the Clinton administration and as a United Nations human rights officer in Cambodia. [http://asiasociety.org/
On Friday in Oslo, the Nobel Peace Prize will be awarded to jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. Many around the world will watch, but a handful of world leaders won't be in attendance. Even the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, won't be there.
Their absences come after a relentless pressure campaign by China's government—one which is a symptom of a broader global transformation. Though China's rapid rise has had many positive implications, it has also seen Beijing severely undermine the international human rights system.
In the shadow of World War II and the Holocaust, a series of documents codified the principles of a universal human rights system. They included the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the genocide convention, which asserted that states no longer had the unlimited right to murder their own citizens. Because prewar nationalism had helped foment such catastrophe, compromises to absolutist concepts of state sovereignty—and assertions of individual human rights—were cornerstones of this revolutionary development in international affairs.
These norms and practices developed (unevenly and with large, deadly exceptions) over the second half of the 20th century. To give just a few examples: The 1975 Helsinki Accords, signed in spite of Cold War differences, codified certain human rights protections in international law; sanctions on apartheid South Africa played a key role in that country's transformation; and states took strong action to protect the human rights of Kosovar Albanians against their sovereign state. Inadequate responses to genocides in Cambodia and Rwanda were widely seen as failures to live up to a human rights standard that was nevertheless gaining increasing legitimacy.
China's rise has changed this.
Beijing often sees absolute national sovereignty as a key to national cohesiveness.
There are many reasons for this. The country has seen its sovereignty violated repeatedly by Western powers and Japan over the past 200 years. Today it fears secessionist movements in Xinjiang and Tibet, and it also seeks to assert authority over Taiwan. It is also animated by a culture that often places collective progress over individual rights. China's concept of sovereignty stands in sharp contrast to the norms of the postwar human rights system.
Wherever human rights are massively abused today, China is the main protector of the abusing government. In Sudan, China shielded the Bashir government in the U.N. as Sudanese troops and allied militias used Chinese arms to commit genocide in Darfur. Brutal regimes in Burma and North Korea similarly could not survive without strong Chinese support, protection and weapons. China has blocked efforts to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and to pressure Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka to adhere to international human rights norms.
Because China helps protect these regimes—and often benefits commercially, in the form of deals for natural resources—international efforts to protect human rights generally have no net effect on the abusing regime's actions. States must choose to stand up for human rights standards—with minimal prospects for success and often to their own strategic detriment—or not. That the latter option is increasingly chosen implicitly confirms that the state-enforced international human rights system is dead.
This doesn't mean that there is not a role for setting international standards, or that citizens' rights movements are dead, even in places like China. It also doesn't mean that human rights advocates should not rejoice at what China has done to bring hundreds of millions of its people out of abject poverty.
It does mean, however, that those unlucky souls around the world who find their rights massively abused by their own governments can, thanks largely to China, expect little or no help from foreign states.
U.N. rights chief slams China, defends Assange
click here to view this on Foreign Policy
Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, pressed China to release this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, expressing hope that China will "come to recognize" the positive contribution the pro-democracy activist can make on Chinese society.
In a rare, wide-ranging press conference in Geneva, Pillay presented the U.N.'s strongest public criticism of China's imprisonment of Liu, who is serving an 11-year jail sentence for drafting the pro-democracy Charter 08 manifesto. Pillay also scolded China for placing Liu's wife, Liu Xia, under house arrest "that in my view is in contravention of Chinese national law."
The remarks by the South African rights advocate bore a stark contrast to U.N. Secretary GeneralBan Ki-moon's highly circumspect comments on Liu's selection as the 2010 Nobel laureate. To date, Ban has never publicly called for his release, spoken out against the house arrest of his wife, or even officially congratulated him on the prize. Ban did not raise the matter in private talks with Chinese leader Hu Jintao, reserving discussion of the politically delicate matter for talks with lower-level Chinese officials.
Chinese offficials have responded to the Nobel Committee's decision to honor Liu, whom they consider a criminal, by lobbying foreign governments not to attend this week's award ceremony. "China's foreign ministry has boasted that the peace prize has been discredited because a large number of countries agree with China and will boycott the ceremony," wrote Keith Richburg of the Washington Post. "So far, China has listed 18 other countries not attending, including fellow communist regimes Cuba and Vietnam; Arab monarchies and authoritarian regimes includingSaudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia; and China's allies Venezuela, Pakistan, Sudan, and neighboring Russia and Kazakhstan. Iran, Colombia and Ukraine also said their ambassadors will not attend."
Beijing has also mounted a crackdown on Chinese activists and critics inside China. Pillay said that she was "dismayed" by the recent restrictions China has placed on a "widening circle" of activists and critics of the government. "In recent weeks at least twenty activists have been arrested or detained and more than 120 other cases of house arrest, travel restrictions, forced relocations and other acts of intimidation," she said. Pillay defended her decision not to attend the Nobel award ceremony, saying that she never received a formal invitation to the event from the Nobel Peace Prize organization.
Pillay came under fire from Yang Jianli, a U.S.-based Chinese dissident and friend of Liu Xiaobo, who said that the rights leader had rejected an invitation to attend the meeting. At the time, Pillay's spokesman defended her decision not to go on the grounds that she had a previous obligation to host a Human Rights Day event in Geneva on the same day.
Pillay also weighed in on the mounting WikiLeaks controversy, decrying the efforts of politicians and other government officials to "pressure" banks, Internet providers, and credit card companies to cut off Wikileaks, saying such measures ran afoul of free-speech protections. "I am concerned about reports of pressure exerted on private companies including banks, credit card companies and Internet service providers to close down credit lines for donations to Wikileaks, as well as to stop hosting the website," she said.
"Taken as a whole [such measures] could be interpreted as an attempt to censor the publication of information thus potentially violating WikiLeaks right to freedom of expression. If WikiLeaks has committed any recognizable illegal act then this should be handled through the legal system and not through pressure and intimidation."
The remarks follow a high-level campaign, first initiated by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, to pressure companies, universities, and other institutions to prevent Wikileaks from disseminating confidential cables. A group of anonymous computer "hacktivists" have retaliated by mounting cyber attacks on the websites of institutions that they believe have been hostile to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
"This is truly what media would call a cyber war; it's just astonishing," Pillay said. "The WikiLeaks case raises complex human rights questions about balancing freedom of information, the right of people to know, and the need to protect national security or public order. This balancing act is a difficult one... So who is best to judge or strike at the balance, but courts of law?"
Pillay said the WikiLeaks documents have provided troubling new evidence that the Obama administration "knew about the widespread use of torture by Iraqi forces and yet proceeded with the transfer of thousands" of Iraqi detainees from U.S. custody to Iraqi custody between 2009 and 2010. "This could potentially constitute a serious breach of human rights law." She said she supported the efforts of U.N. human rights researchers who are seeking clarification from the U.S. and Iraqi authorities on the use of torture. She urged all to investigate the reports "and bring to justice those responsible for human rights abuses."
Follow me on Twitter @columlynch.
U.N. rights chief urges freedom for dissenters
(Reuters) - The U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay, in a clear reference to campaigners such as China's Nobel winner Liu Xiaobo, called Wednesday for the release of all prisoners jailed for promoting democracy.
Pillay, a former South African High Court judge, issued her appeal in a statement for U.N. Human Rights Day to be marked in Geneva and New York Friday at the same time as Liu will be honored in absentia with the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo.
Pillay has been criticized over the past days for "kow-towing" to Beijing by refusing to go to the ceremony, but her spokesman said Wednesday she had not been invited.
"I call on governments to acknowledge that criticism is not a crime and to release all those people who have been detained for peacefully exercising their fundamental rights to defend democratic principles and human rights," she said.
Although she referred to dissenting journalists and teachers and to the families of imprisoned dissidents being harassed -- which could apply to Liu and many others -- she did not mention him by name in the two-page statement.
Issued by her office in Geneva, it said advances across the world in human rights were due to "the enormous efforts of hundreds of thousands of largely unsung heroes" and the commitment and courage of human rights defenders.
Pillay has been outspoken on rights violations in countries like Iran and Sri Lanka and has criticized Russia, China and the United States in the past. She rebuked Beijing openly last December when Liu was given his 11-year prison sentence.
Over the past few days, Chinese dissidents in the West and some non-governmental rights groups often critical of the U.N. have asserted that she -- like a number of governments -- had given in to Chinese pressure by declining to go to Oslo.
But spokesman Rupert Colville told Reuters that was based on false information: "She could not have refused because she has never had an invitation from the prize committee."
Colville said she would be making a wide-ranging speech expanding on Wednesday's statement at the rights day ceremonies in Geneva Friday, and would be ready to answer questions on Liu at a news conference after, he added.
Even before the denial, some Western diplomats expressed sympathy for Pillay, whose often feisty pronouncements have angered members of the developing country bloc, including China, which holds sway in the U.N. Human Rights Council.
"We may criticize some of what she has done, but by and large she has proven her credentials as a champion of human rights in what is a very difficult job," said one European envoy who asked not to be named.
(Editing by Alison Williams)
UN rapporteur says Assange shouldn't be prosecuted
CLICK TO VIEW THIS ON ABC AUSTRALIAFrank La Rue says he doesn't think that the United States Government will be able to make a case against Julian Assange. But he warns it would set a very bad example for free speech if it did take action against him.
He spoke to me earlier today from his home in Guatemala City:
Frank La Rue you monitor freedom of expression and attempts to curtail it around the world. Do you agree with supporters of WikiLeaks that its founder Julian Assange is now a martyr for free speech?
FRANK LA RUE: It certainly is. If there is a responsibility by leaking information it is of, exclusively of the person that made the leak and not of the media that publish it. And this is the way that transparency works and that corruption has been confronted in many cases.
I do believe there's some types of limitations that I actually drafted in my report in Geneva last year and some basic principles. But essentially they have to be in exceptional form.
They have to be established by law. They have to protect a superior goal and imminent danger. And the legislation has to be prior, it has to be clear so people can actually understand perfectly well what will be limited…
ELEANOR HALL: So do you think given that then that the US Government has any grounds to charge the WikiLeaks founder and to seek his extradition?
FRANK LA RUE: I don't think so. I think with the WikiLeaks founder there's two issues at stake. He supposedly is going to be extradited to Sweden for other types of crime not related at all to freedom of expression.
If that is the case I have nothing to say except that I wish that Sweden or any country where he will be tried give him the full guarantees of due process of law and a full possibility of defence.
But in reference to what has been published in WikiLeaks I think there is no criminal responsibility for being the medium. This is one of the big debates in internet and up to now the general doctrine is that there is no responsibility just to transfer information.
There is a responsibility in I would say in this case in two situations. One is that some statements can clearly be a threat to national security. And the second issue is the personal safety of individuals. Those are the cases that really have to be looked at.
But having said that just the fact that the information is embarrassing information to a government does not make it subject to be blocked or filtered or reprisals to the director/founder of the service.
ELEANOR HALL: So have you made representations to the US Government about their attempts to curtail Julian Assange's activities and to prosecute him?
FRANK LA RUE: Up to now the information we have, and I have been asking, is that they have been talking about prosecution of matters not related to the recent information revealed in WikiLeaks. And I have nothing to add because that's beyond my mandate.
ELEANOR HALL: Well at least one company is alleging today that it's coming under pressure from the US Government to stop dealing with WikiLeaks. Do you have concerns about that?
FRANK LA RUE: I do. And that I do understand that is the case and there I have not been required by this company, all the information I would ask them to handle. But I have made it clear that just the fact that the information is leaked should not be the excuse to pressure any of the enterprises that are serving that information.
ELEANOR HALL: Then there's the counter-attack or payback operation they're calling it from WikiLeaks' supporters. Is that retaliation justified?
FRANK LA RUE: I don't believe in retaliation per se. I believe in defending the principles of freedom of expression. My position is that all expression should be allowed.
ELEANOR HALL: What about the freedom of expression of those who express outrage about WikiLeaks? Should people be allowed to call for a person's assassination for example?
FRANK LA RUE: Never. That is incitement to hatred and violence. And that is, that falls under article 20 of ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
I think people can express their outrage and people can say that they feel offended by the content of what's being presented in WikiLeaks. But never to call for harassment or direct action against those that are doing that.
ELEANOR HALL: You work for one of the world's biggest diplomatic organisations. Do you have any concerns about WikiLeaks publishing diplomatic cables? I mean do the political players at the UN also have a right to private conversations or does free speech WikiLeaks-style trump that?
FRANK LA RUE: No I believe there's a right to privacy. And I believe there is a criminal responsibility for those that leak it. But I think that is from those functionaries that are actually leaking the information and not from the medium that is making it public.
ELEANOR HALL: Some are suggesting that the WikiLeaks release of secret documents is a game changer. Does the notion of free speech need to be updated to deal with the realities of the modern flow of information?
FRANK LA RUE: I don't think so. My next report to the Human Rights Council in Geneva in June is going to be precisely on freedom of expression and internet.
And I deal with some issues of that nature - blocking, filtering, criminalisation of some speech; but also with issues of privacy, data protection.
And one issue that no-one is really dealing with for me is crucial is the question of access - accessibility to the internet.
ELEANOR HALL: The US Government seems pretty determined to find some way of charging Julian Assange. Who do you think is going to win this battle?
FRANK LA RUE: I will hope certainly that the principle of freedom of expression is the one that prevails because I believe that even if the US feels embarrassed it will be a bad example if anyone is harassed or charged or prosecuted for that.
ELEANOR HALL: Frank La Rue is the United Nations special reporter on freedom of opinion and expression.
And you can listen to a longer version of that interview on our website later this afternoon which includes his reaction to the WikiLeaks cable that suggested the US authorised its diplomats to spy on UN personnel.
Denmark joins Korean green growth institute
On the sidelines of the current U.N. climate talks in Cancun, Mexico, the Danish government agreed Wednesday to participate in the activities of the GGGI, promising to invest $5 million every year in the coming three years.
Established in May, GGGI is a non-profit organization aimed at developing the Korean government’s green growth initiative and helping developing countries adopt their own green growth strategy.
Under the leadership of former Prime Minister Han Seung-soo, domestic and international experts such as Nicholas Stern, professor at the London School of Economics, and Thomas Heller, director of the Climate Policy Initiative, a think tank financed by George Soros, are working as key members of the institute.
Denmark plans to open a local branch of GGGI in Copenhagen and to participate in supporting the green growth efforts of developing countries mainly in the fields of energy and transportation.
“Korea and Denmark are standing together at the starting line for the spread of green growth initiative. That would have a positive effect in the green efforts of developing countries,” said Korea’s Environment Minister Lee Maa-nee, who was attending the Cancun conference.
According to GGGI, the institute has already provided Indonesia, Ethiopia and Brazil with green growth strategies, planning to gradually expand the recipient countries from next year.
Fidel Castro says "Ban Ki-moon is full of ...it"
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS ON GRANMA
REFLECTIONS OF FIDEL
MINUSTAH and the epidemic
Taken from CubaDebate
APPROXIMATELY three weeks ago news and footage came in of Haitian citizens throwing stones and angrily protesting against the forces of the MINUSTAH, accusing it of having transmitted cholera to that country via a Nepalese soldier.
The initial impression, if one did not receive any additional information, is that it was a rumor born from the antipathy that every occupying force provokes.
How could that information be confirmed? Many of us were unaware of the characteristics of cholera and its means of transmission. A few days later, the protests in Haiti ceased and there was no more talk of the matter.
The epidemic followed its inexorable course, and other problems, such as the risks associated with the electoral battle, occupied our time.
Today, reliable and credible news came in concerning what really happened. The Haitian people had more than sufficient reason to express their indignation.
The AFP news agency textually affirmed that: "Last month, the eminent French epidemiologist Renaud Piarroux headed an investigation in Haiti and came to the conclusion that the epidemic was generated by an imported strain, and extended from the Nepalese base" of MINUSTAH.
For its part, another European agency, EFE, reported: "The origin of the disease is to be found in the little town of Mirebalais, in the center of the country, where Nepalese soldiers had based their camp, and it appeared a few days after their arrival, which confirms the origin of the epidemic…"
"To date, the UN mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) has denied that the epidemic entered via its blue berets."
"…French Dr. Renaud Piarroux, considered one of the principal world specialists in the study of cholera epidemics, leaves no doubt as to the origin of the disease…"
"The French study was ordered by Paris at the request of the Haitian authorities, stated a French diplomatic spokesperson."
"…the appearance of the disease coincides with the arrival of the Nepalese soldiers who, moreover, originate from a country where there is a cholera epidemic.
"There is no other way of explaining such a sudden and fierce eclosion of cholera in a little town of a few dozen inhabitants.
"The report also analyses the form of the propagation of the disease, given that fecal water from the Nepalese camp was draining into the river from which the town’s inhabitants take their water."
As the same agency communicated, the most surprising thing that the UN did was "…to send an investigative mission to the Nepalese camp, which concluded that that could not have been the origin of the epidemic."
In the midst of the destruction wrought by the earthquake, the epidemic and its poverty, Haiti cannot do without an international force which can cooperate with a nation ruined by foreign interventions and transnational exploitation. The UN must not only fulfill its elemental duty of fighting for Haiti’s reconstruction and development, but also that of mobilizing the resources needed to eradicate an epidemic that is threatening to extend to the neighboring Dominican Republic, the Caribbean, Latin America and other similar Asian and African countries.
Why did the UN insist on denying that the MINUSTAH brought the epidemic to the people of Haiti? We are not blaming Nepal, which in the past was a British colony, and whose men were utilized in its colonial wars and are now seeking employment as soldiers.
We made inquiries with the Cuban doctors currently providing services in Haiti and they confirmed to us the news circulated by the abovementioned European news agencies with notable precision.
I will make a brief synthesis of what was communicated to us by Yamila Zayas Nápoles, a specialist in comprehensive general medicine and anesthesiology, director of a medical institution that has eight basic specialties and diagnostic tools from the Cuba-Venezuela project, inaugurated in October 2009 in the urban area of Mirebalais, with 86,000 inhabitants, in the department of Nord.
On Saturday, October 15 three patients were admitted with symptoms of diarrhea and acute dehydration; on Sunday 16th, four were admitted with similar characteristics, but all of them from one family, and they made the decision to isolate them and communicate what had happened to the Medical Mission; surprisingly, on Monday 17th, 28 patients were admitted with similar symptoms.
The Medical Mission immediately sent a group of specialists in epidemiology who took blood, vomit, fecal samples and data, which were sent with urgency to Haiti’s national laboratories.
On October 22, the labs reported that the strain isolated matched to the one prevalent in Asia and Oceania, which is the most severe. The Nepalese unit of the UN blue berets is located on the bank of the Artibonite River, which runs through the little community of Méyè, where the epidemic emerged, and Mirebalais, to which it then rapidly spread.
In spite of the sudden way in which cholera appeared in the small, but excellent hospital in the service of Haiti, only 13 of the first 2,822 sick persons died, giving a mortality rate of 0.5%; subsequently, when the Cholera Treatment Center was set up in a remote area, out of 3,459 patients, five in a serious condition died, giving 0.1%.
The total number of persons suffering from cholera in Haiti rose today, Tuesday, December 7 to 93,222 persons, and the number of patients who have died reached a total of 2,120. Among those treated by the Cuban Mission the mortality rate rose to 0.83%. The mortality rate in other hospital institutions stands at 3.2%. With the experience acquired, appropriate measures and the reinforcement of the Henry Reeve Brigade, the Cuban Medical Mission, with the support of the Haitian authorities, has offered a presence in many of the isolated 207 sub-communes, so that no Haitian citizen lacks medical attention in the face of the epidemic, and many thousands of lives can be saved.
Fidel Castro Ruz
December 7, 2010
6:34 p.m.
Translated by Granma International
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
DPADM Best Practices: Two former DPADP staffers lend their expertise to EU's initiatives on eGovernment
Two former staffers of DPADM/DESA, Mr. Guido Bertucci and Ms. Barbara Ubaldi, lending their knowledge and know-how to European Union initiatives which aim to lift-off "Open Government".
For more about the programme and their involvement please click here:
Haiti: Epidemics of denial must end (UN is now covering it up)
Haiti's cholera outbreak is a depressing reminder that the first victim of an epidemic is often the truth, says Debora MacKenzie
AS HAITI'S deadly cholera epidemic spreads, it may seem irrelevant to ask where the disease came from. The World Health Organization certainly thinks it is, describing the question as "unimportant".
That could not be further from the truth. Haitians themselves care deeply about how their country got cholera. There is widespread suspicion that the disease was brought in by United Nations peacekeepers from Nepal, and that the UN is now covering it up. This suspicion has sparked riots that have killed people, both directly and by impeding medical efforts.
We should care too. Haiti's cholera tragedy - more than 1600 dead and 30,000 hospitalised as New Scientist went to press - tells us something important about our highly interconnected planet, and how we should - but still don't - govern it.
Cholera bacteria thrive on poverty and disruption, and Haiti has plenty of both. The country was free of cholera when the earthquake struck in January, but when the disease broke out in October it quickly took off.
When the news broke on 20 October, suspicion fell rapidly on 454 Nepalese UN peacekeepers based in the town of Mirebalais, 60 kilometres north of the capital Port-au-Prince. Haitian officials tested the river by the base two days later.
There were reasons to suspect these Nepalese. Cholera, which is carried by faeces-tainted water, is endemic in Nepal: there was an outbreak in Kathmandu, the country's capital, just before the peacekeepers flew in from there between 9 and 16 October. Their camp in Mirebalais dumped sewagestraight into a stream that led to Haiti's main central river. The first cases were in Mirebalais and downstream, areas barely touched by the earthquake. What is more, the DNA in Haiti's cholera shows it was a single, recent introduction of a strain from south Asia, though we don't know if it is circulating in Nepal.
All of this is just circumstantial evidence, of course. The UN insists it is in the clear because the tests on water on or near the base did not find cholera, and none of the peacekeepers had symptoms.
Yet this doesn't clear the matter up. Many people with the strain now circulating in Haiti do not develop symptoms but shed bacteria in their faeces up to two weeks after infection. Nor are negative water tests conclusive: cholera researchers say the bacteria are hard to find in fast-flowing rivers. To settle the matter, the Nepalese soldiers themselves should have been tested, promptly.
A single positive swab from a soldier early in the outbreak would have strongly suggested they were the source. A negative result would not have entirely cleared them - tests can produce false negatives - but it may well have calmed public suspicion.
But no such tests were done. The Nepalese government claims the water samples alone prove that its troops are not the source. The UN Mission in Haiti even phoned me out of the blue to claim that tests cannot detect cholera in symptom-free people.
They can. That is an elementary scientific fact about cholera.
Why would the UN go to such trouble? I can only conclude that they are trying to protect themselves and their people. Many Haitians dislike the UN force; dozens of peacekeepers have been killed in violent clashes since the mission arrived in 2004 to stabilise the country in the face of political upheaval.
I asked Brian Concannon, head of human rights group Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti, who worked for the UN in Haiti in the 1990s, what he thought. He told me that most people in Haiti already blame the UN, and that an admission of guilt - if appropriate - might not have been as damaging as the UN assumes. "I can't see that it would have led to any greater anger." It might even have defused the situation, he says.
There are broader lessons to be learned. UN peacekeepers around the world are largely supplied by poor countries, and of the top 15 contributors, which supply 71 per cent of UN troops, 12 harbour cholera. If Haiti's cholera did indeed come from Nepal, it was a foreseeable accident. More caution is called for.
Even more importantly, Haiti reminds us that the interconnectedness of our world allows pretty much any infectious disease to travel pretty much anywhere. We've seen it with HIV, West Nile virus, malaria, chikungunya and many more. Yet the knee-jerk reaction of every authority responsible for starting an outbreak, or letting one spread, is denial. No one wants to be the bearer of disease - but denial doesn't work, and can make things worse.
The interconnectedness of the world means that any infectious disease can travel anywhere
Remember BSE? Starting with the UK, government after government claimed that beef was safe, or that their cows didn't have it, and resisted tests that eventually showed otherwise. Their denials and stalling allowed the disease to be shipped worldwide. In 2004, China denied having H5N1 bird flu, even though scientists knew otherwise. The delay helped the virus spread across half the world. In 2003, denial in several countries worsened SARS.
You can understand why authorities deny responsibility for diseases: they think the truth will cause unrest. But as the UK's BSE inquiry concluded, cover-ups don't dampen public dismay - they deepen it.
The big lesson from Haiti is the same as with every new disease outbreak: do the tests, find out as much as possible, and tell the truth. What part of this is so hard to learn? Denial may seem safer, but with scientists increasingly able to track pathogens, and bystanders increasingly armed with cellphones and the internet, it isn't.
Accountability matters, vitally so in a networked world. It is too late now to do those tests in Haiti. It is not too late to learn why they should have been done.
Debora MacKenzie is New Scientist's Brussels correspondent
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
