May 27, 2008 - ST
Can Singapore be a salad bowl, teens ask Vivian
Yes, nation welcomes individuals' uniqueness, says minister to SMS queries from students
By Jane Ng
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE TO MYANMAR CRISIS
May 23, 2008
HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE TO MYANMAR CRISIS - ST
'Soft' intervention better than none
By Timothy Garton Ash, For The Straits Times
THIS weekend, unless Myanmar's generals find in their shrivelled souls some hidden shred of human decency, there will take place in the Irrawaddy delta one of the most grotesque events in the political history of the modern world.
While dead children still lie face down in muddy waters after the May 3 cyclone, while survivors fall ill with life- threatening diarrhoea, while international aid workers are prevented by the junta from bringing in supplies that could save them, Myanmar's citizens will be herded into makeshift polling stations to approve by plebiscite a Constitution designed to prevent the results of a democratic election held 18 years ago from ever being respected.
The results of the referendum will be falsified, of course, as they already have been in other parts of the country. And down in the delta, you can be sure the dead will vote early and vote often.
This from a regime which, over decades, has reduced what was historically one of the more prosperous places in South-east Asia to one of the poorest and most oppressed. If ever a country needed regime change, it is Myanmar.
So what should we do about it? French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has led the debate on this, invoking the notion of an international 'responsibility to protect' (R2P) which was cautiously blessed by the United Nations in 2005.
Although it was mainly intended for other purposes (for example, stopping genocide and ethnic cleansing), R2P is a useful guide in thinking about what we can do for Myanmar, starting with the fact that the R stands for responsibility (to protect), not right (to invade).
WAYS AND MEANS
The responsibility to protect must be exercised responsibly - that is, with a careful, informed calculation of the likely consequences. I conclude that we should use every means except that of military-backed unilateral (or Western 'coalition of the willing') action, which has few Reasonable Prospects, is arguably not the Last Resort, and would not have Right Authority.
The Canadian-backed international commission that produced the report on R2P in 2001 deliberately made this shift in emphasis, which is relatively new. When is that responsibility triggered, and what is the threshold that justifies intervention, up to and including the use of force?
The commission updated some time-honoured thinking about 'just war' to identify six criteria: Just Cause, Right Intention, Last Resort, Proportional Means, Reasonable Prospects and Right Authority. Among the conditions that would give Just Cause for intervention, it listed 'overwhelming natural or environmental catastrophes, where the state concerned is either unwilling or unable to cope, or call for assistance, and significant loss of life is occurring or threatened'. Well, here we are then.
I have no doubt we have a responsibility to act in this case, and we have Just Cause to do so without the explicit consent of Myanmar's illegitimate rulers. Unlike over Iraq, I would credit even US President George W. Bush with Right Intention here.
I suppose you could argue that the interests of the West might be served by gaining influence over a buffer state between India and China (and, yes, Myanmar does have oil). But I don't think that's why a US ship is on standby off the Irrawaddy delta with helicopters and supplies.
Proportional Means? Yes, air drops and a 'sea bridge' for aid would seem to me proportionate to save the lives of certainly tens of thousands, and potentially hundreds of thousands, of innocent men, women and children.
With the other three principles, things get more complicated. Right Authority should mean, ideally, a UN Security Council resolution. Mr Kouchner has discovered we won't get this. That leaves something like the Kosovo intervention, pithily described as 'illegal but legitimate'.
But whereas action over Kosovo was supported by a majority of its neighbours and of the world's democracies, this one would not be - starting with the world's largest democracy, neighbouring India.
Last Resort means you've tried all other ways first. That's tough in this case, because while you are trying, people are dying. But can we really say we've exhausted all other possibilities?
The fact is, thanks to visits such as those of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon and British Foreign Office Minister Mark Malloch Brown, and thanks to some (not enough) pressure from China and Asian neighbours, the regime has now agreed to let in more aid under the flag of Asean. There are also charities working on the ground in the delta, using local staff.
If we keep our elbow to the door, are ingenious and persistent, as well as work closely with China, India and Thailand, we may be able to get more of the Western, rich countries' aid in under, so to speak, an Asian umbrella.
Perhaps a 'sea bridge' could even be built using Indian ships, or simply boats flying an Asian flag of convenience, to transport the supplies from the waiting British, American and French ships. Too little, too late - but what's the alternative?
That question brings us to one of the most important criteria: Reasonable Prospects (of success, that is). Consider the likely consequences of military-protected unilateral air drops and 'sea bridges' from those American, British and French ships.
I am told these would have little chance of getting what is really needed - now mainly sanitation, clean water, medical supplies and care, as well as food and shelter - to those who mainly need them, often in remote areas. For that, you need light local transport and trained medical and aid workers on the spot.
Some observers scoff: 'You don't seriously think the regime's pitiful forces would try to stop' forced humanitarianism. Well, I do - because they already have. As of last weekend, they had admitted just three - three! - foreign aid workers to the delta.
Non-governmental organisations on the ground express the fear that forced humanitarianism would lead to an immediate suspension of other aid supplies. The generals' indifference to the fate of their own people is matched only by their selfishness, cynicism and loss of contact with reality. Could they be so stupid? They could be so stupid.
The responsibility to protect must be exercised responsibly - with a careful, informed calculation of the likely consequences. I conclude that we should use every means except that of military- backed unilateral (or Western 'coalition of the willing') action, which has few Reasonable Prospects, is arguably not the Last Resort, and would not have Right Authority.
This does not mean we do nothing. We have a responsibility to act by every other means available, and there are many forms of 'intervention' short of the military. For us ordinary citizens, that includes ensuring the charities which do operate there have sufficient funds.
As for those criminal generals - who, believe it or not, consider themselves to be good Buddhists - I will say only this: They have already produced so much bad karma that, if there is any justice in the great cycle of things, they will all come back as rats.
timothy.gartonash@sant.ox.ac.uk
The writer is professor of European studies at Oxford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University
HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE TO MYANMAR CRISIS - ST
'Soft' intervention better than none
By Timothy Garton Ash, For The Straits Times
THIS weekend, unless Myanmar's generals find in their shrivelled souls some hidden shred of human decency, there will take place in the Irrawaddy delta one of the most grotesque events in the political history of the modern world.
While dead children still lie face down in muddy waters after the May 3 cyclone, while survivors fall ill with life- threatening diarrhoea, while international aid workers are prevented by the junta from bringing in supplies that could save them, Myanmar's citizens will be herded into makeshift polling stations to approve by plebiscite a Constitution designed to prevent the results of a democratic election held 18 years ago from ever being respected.
The results of the referendum will be falsified, of course, as they already have been in other parts of the country. And down in the delta, you can be sure the dead will vote early and vote often.
This from a regime which, over decades, has reduced what was historically one of the more prosperous places in South-east Asia to one of the poorest and most oppressed. If ever a country needed regime change, it is Myanmar.
So what should we do about it? French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has led the debate on this, invoking the notion of an international 'responsibility to protect' (R2P) which was cautiously blessed by the United Nations in 2005.
Although it was mainly intended for other purposes (for example, stopping genocide and ethnic cleansing), R2P is a useful guide in thinking about what we can do for Myanmar, starting with the fact that the R stands for responsibility (to protect), not right (to invade).
WAYS AND MEANS
The responsibility to protect must be exercised responsibly - that is, with a careful, informed calculation of the likely consequences. I conclude that we should use every means except that of military-backed unilateral (or Western 'coalition of the willing') action, which has few Reasonable Prospects, is arguably not the Last Resort, and would not have Right Authority.
The Canadian-backed international commission that produced the report on R2P in 2001 deliberately made this shift in emphasis, which is relatively new. When is that responsibility triggered, and what is the threshold that justifies intervention, up to and including the use of force?
The commission updated some time-honoured thinking about 'just war' to identify six criteria: Just Cause, Right Intention, Last Resort, Proportional Means, Reasonable Prospects and Right Authority. Among the conditions that would give Just Cause for intervention, it listed 'overwhelming natural or environmental catastrophes, where the state concerned is either unwilling or unable to cope, or call for assistance, and significant loss of life is occurring or threatened'. Well, here we are then.
I have no doubt we have a responsibility to act in this case, and we have Just Cause to do so without the explicit consent of Myanmar's illegitimate rulers. Unlike over Iraq, I would credit even US President George W. Bush with Right Intention here.
I suppose you could argue that the interests of the West might be served by gaining influence over a buffer state between India and China (and, yes, Myanmar does have oil). But I don't think that's why a US ship is on standby off the Irrawaddy delta with helicopters and supplies.
Proportional Means? Yes, air drops and a 'sea bridge' for aid would seem to me proportionate to save the lives of certainly tens of thousands, and potentially hundreds of thousands, of innocent men, women and children.
With the other three principles, things get more complicated. Right Authority should mean, ideally, a UN Security Council resolution. Mr Kouchner has discovered we won't get this. That leaves something like the Kosovo intervention, pithily described as 'illegal but legitimate'.
But whereas action over Kosovo was supported by a majority of its neighbours and of the world's democracies, this one would not be - starting with the world's largest democracy, neighbouring India.
Last Resort means you've tried all other ways first. That's tough in this case, because while you are trying, people are dying. But can we really say we've exhausted all other possibilities?
The fact is, thanks to visits such as those of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon and British Foreign Office Minister Mark Malloch Brown, and thanks to some (not enough) pressure from China and Asian neighbours, the regime has now agreed to let in more aid under the flag of Asean. There are also charities working on the ground in the delta, using local staff.
If we keep our elbow to the door, are ingenious and persistent, as well as work closely with China, India and Thailand, we may be able to get more of the Western, rich countries' aid in under, so to speak, an Asian umbrella.
Perhaps a 'sea bridge' could even be built using Indian ships, or simply boats flying an Asian flag of convenience, to transport the supplies from the waiting British, American and French ships. Too little, too late - but what's the alternative?
That question brings us to one of the most important criteria: Reasonable Prospects (of success, that is). Consider the likely consequences of military-protected unilateral air drops and 'sea bridges' from those American, British and French ships.
I am told these would have little chance of getting what is really needed - now mainly sanitation, clean water, medical supplies and care, as well as food and shelter - to those who mainly need them, often in remote areas. For that, you need light local transport and trained medical and aid workers on the spot.
Some observers scoff: 'You don't seriously think the regime's pitiful forces would try to stop' forced humanitarianism. Well, I do - because they already have. As of last weekend, they had admitted just three - three! - foreign aid workers to the delta.
Non-governmental organisations on the ground express the fear that forced humanitarianism would lead to an immediate suspension of other aid supplies. The generals' indifference to the fate of their own people is matched only by their selfishness, cynicism and loss of contact with reality. Could they be so stupid? They could be so stupid.
The responsibility to protect must be exercised responsibly - with a careful, informed calculation of the likely consequences. I conclude that we should use every means except that of military- backed unilateral (or Western 'coalition of the willing') action, which has few Reasonable Prospects, is arguably not the Last Resort, and would not have Right Authority.
This does not mean we do nothing. We have a responsibility to act by every other means available, and there are many forms of 'intervention' short of the military. For us ordinary citizens, that includes ensuring the charities which do operate there have sufficient funds.
As for those criminal generals - who, believe it or not, consider themselves to be good Buddhists - I will say only this: They have already produced so much bad karma that, if there is any justice in the great cycle of things, they will all come back as rats.
timothy.gartonash@sant.ox.ac.uk
The writer is professor of European studies at Oxford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Food Crisis
May 23, 2008 - ST
FOOD WARS
A hungry world tests skills of peacemakers
By Michael Vatikiotis, For The Straits Times
WAR and hunger are inseparable: Experience has shown the close relationship between economic distress and the outbreak of conflict. But the solutions the international community tends to apply are mostly political and rarely address material needs.
So what happens when people are driven to kill one another for food? It's a critical question to ask as the world faces a sudden and unexpected food price crisis that is threatening to plunge millions back into poverty.
The spike in food prices this year has already led to violence. Food riots in parts of Africa and the Caribbean have created social and political instability. In rice-growing countries such as India, Vietnam and Thailand, hoarding has begun, with export bans creating inter-state friction.
Myanmar's rice-growing capacity has just been devastated by Cyclone Nargis, which will add to price pressures soon.
This is a crisis born of inflation and other market factors rather than fundamental shortages. Prices for the benchmark Thai variety of rice, a staple across much of Asia, have risen threefold within a year. Meat prices have risen by 60 per cent in Bangladesh, 45 per cent in Cambodia and 30 per cent in the Philippines. The World Food Programme calls the crisis a 'silent tsunami'.
The threat of conflict is real, both within and between states. as the trend towards liberalisation is suddenly reversed and replaced by subsidies, price-fixing cartels and export curbs. In Indonesia, a retired general recently warned: 'If students demonstrate it's not a worry. But if hungry people take to the streets - now that's dangerous.'
Hunger causes conflict when people feel they have nothing to lose and are willing to kill their neighbours over scarce resources. The peasant wars of the late 20th century in Central and South America and the wars that sprang from famine in Nigeria, Ethiopia and Sudan are reminders of man's most basic instinct, which is to fight to survive.
The trouble is that in terms of resolving conflict, we have come to rely less on material remedies and more on political artifice. Many internal conflicts that have been peacefully resolved in recent years only superficially addressed the material seeds of conflict. Peace deals have been elite affairs where leaders of armed groups reached an understanding on how to share power.
This approach is a sensible first step towards conflict resolution. By convincing people to lay down their arms, it becomes possible to start designing a wider range of policies to address socio- economic issues.
But the benefits of economic development the public expects trickle down slowly, if at all. Aceh in Indonesia, for example, remains poor, as does Mindanao in the Philippines - two areas of South-east Asia where peace was recently negotiated.
When hunger drives people into conflict, we might presume that peacemaking will be a question of providing food. We would be wrong. The experience of aid agencies in the 1970s and 1980s in Africa was that food aid tends to fuel conflict as the combatants seek to harness the supply of nutrition to the goals of war.
Experts say farmers will eventually adjust the supply of food to cope with higher demand so that prices stabilise. And there are signs that decades of improving cooperation between states is stimulating a collective urge to resolve the crisis.
The sharing of technology is key, says former United Nations chief Kofi Annan. He believes that farmers in Africa could double their food output in five to 10 years if rich countries partner them in a 'Green Revolution'.
But trade agreements and technological advances are slow-moving transformations. In the meantime, officials in India warn that rising food prices could plunge millions into poverty in a country that is already battling an internal Marxist insurgency.
So the immediate challenge is to prevent and resolve conflict arising from the food crisis. This places a significant burden on the international community to swiftly respond to outbreaks of violence. If people driven to war by hunger are less inclined to compromise, this would make the task of peacemaking more challenging. If conflict fuelled by hunger becomes more widespread, this will exert strain on international agencies involved in peacekeeping and humanitarian work.
Peacemakers need to be more aware of the socio-economic roots of conflict. They should incorporate in peace agreements remedies for these grievances and enlist the international community's support for their implementation. Such remedies should include addressing in a meaningful way issues such as land distribution, job creation as well as racial and ethnic discrimination.
The ethnic and religious wars of the 20th century have perhaps lulled us into a false sense of security. We have grown accustomed to resolving conflict by forging political compromises in situations where protagonists had much to lose materially if they kept on fighting. But in a world where the prices of staples can triple within months, it is harder to find grounds for compromise.
This calls for more effective negotiating skills both domestically and internationally, bilaterally as well as multilaterally. Markets must be kept open to assist with the flow of goods to crisis countries, and solutions must be found that address both elite and popular grievances.
The writer is Asia regional director for the Geneva-based Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008: The year of global food crisis
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2104849.0.2008
Scots Newspaper
The_year_of_global_food_crisis.php
Special report
By Kate Smith and Rob Edwards
Comment | Read Comments (154)
IT IS the new face of hunger. A perfect storm of food scarcity, global warming, rocketing oil prices and the world population explosion is plunging humanity into the biggest crisis of the 21st century by pushing up food prices and spreading hunger and poverty from rural areas into cities.
Millions more of the world's most vulnerable people are facing starvation as food shortages loom and crop prices spiral ever upwards.
And for the first time in history, say experts, the impact is spreading from the developing to the developed world.
More than 73 million people in 78 countries that depend on food handouts from the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) are facing reduced rations this year. The increasing scarcity of food is the biggest crisis looming for the world'', according to WFP officials.
At the same time, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation has warned that rising prices have triggered a food crisis in 36 countries, all of which will need extra help. The threat of malnutrition is the world's forgotten problem'', says the World Bank as it demands urgent action.
The bank points out that global food prices have risen by 75% since 2000, while wheat prices have increased by 200%. The cost of other staples such as rice and soya bean have also hit record highs, while corn is at its most expensive in 12 years.
The increasing cost of grains is also pushing up the price of meat, poultry, eggs and dairy products. And there is every likelihood prices will continue their relentless rise, according to expert predictions by the UN and developed countries.
High prices have already prompted a string of food protests around the world, with tortilla riots in Mexico, disputes over food rationing in West Bengal and protests over grain prices in Senegal, Mauritania and other parts of Africa. In Yemen, children have marched to highlight their hunger, while in London last week hundreds of pig farmers protested outside Downing Street.
If prices keep rising, more and more people around the globe will be unable to afford the food they need to stay alive, and without help they will become desperate. More food riots will flare up, governments will totter and millions could die.
Food scarcity means a big increase in the number of people going hungry,'' says the WFP's Greg Barrow. Without doubt, we are passing through a difficult period for the world's hungry poor.'' The WFP estimates it needs an additional $500 million to keep feeding the 73 million people in Africa, Asia and central America who require its help. We need extra money by the middle of 2008 so we don't have to reduce rations,'' says Barrow.
He also points out that age-old patterns of famine are changing. "We are feeding communities of people we didn't expect to feed," he explains.
As well as being rural, the profile of the new hungry poor is also urban, which is new. There is food available in the markets and shops - it's just that these people can't afford to buy it. This is the new face of hunger.'' The food shortages will also affect western industrialised nations such as Scotland, Barrow says. Scarcity means that some foods will get very expensive, or disappear from supermarkets altogether, meaning a move to seasonal, indigenous vegetables.'' Of the 36 countries named last month as currently facing a food crisis, 21 are in Africa. Lesotho and Swaziland have been afflicted by droughts, Sierra Leone lacks widespread access to food markets because of low incomes and high prices, and Ghana, Kenya and Chad among others are enduring "severe localised food insecurity".
In India last year, more than 25,000 farmers took their own lives, driven to despair by grain shortages and farming debts. "The spectre of food grain imports stares India in the face as agricultural growth plunges to an all-time low," warns India Today magazine.
The World Bank predicts global demand for food will double by 2030. This is partly because the world's population is expected to grow by three billion by 2050, but that is only one of many interlocking causes.
The rise in global temperatures caused by pollution is also beginning to disrupt food production in many countries. According to the UN, an area of fertile soil the size of Ukraine is lost every year because of drought, deforestation and climate instability.
Last year Australia experienced its worst drought for over a century, and saw its wheat crop shrink by 60%. China's grain harvest has also fallen by 10% over the past seven years.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted that, over the next 100 years, a one-metre rise in sea levels would flood almost a third of the world's crop-growing land.
A recent analysis by the Conservative Party leader, David Cameron, also pinned blame for the global food crunch'' on the accelerating demand for allegedly green biofuels and the world's growing appetite for meat.
Meat is a very inefficient way of utilising land to produce food, delivering far fewer calories, acre for acre, than grain. But the amount of meat eaten by the average Chinese consumer has increased from 20 kilograms a year in 1985 to over 50 kilograms today. The demand for meat from across all developing countries has doubled since 1980.
The world's grain stocks are at their lowest for 30 years, Cameron warns. "Some analysts are beginning to make some very worrying, very stark predictions. And these analysts say politicians should start to rank the issue of food security alongside energy security and even national security."
Another key driver is the soaring cost of oil, which last week topped $105 a barrel for the first time. As well as increasing transport costs, oil makes crop fertilisers more expensive.
According to the World Bank, fertiliser prices have risen 150% in the past five years. This has had a major impact on food prices, as the cost of fertiliser contributes over a quarter of the overall cost of grain production in the US, which is responsible for 40% of world grain exports.
Tackling hunger has become a "forgotten" UN millennium development goal, says the bank's president, Robert Zoellick.
But increased food prices and their threat - not only to people but also to political stability - have made it a matter of urgency," he says.
Scottish farmers warn that food security is becoming an issue for the first time since the second world war. This is a perfect storm and the effects are being felt right now," says James Withers, the acting chief executive of the National Farmers' Union in Scotland.
"At the same time as demand for food increases, the amount of land we have available to grow food on is reducing," he adds. "An area twice the size of Scotland's entire agricultural area has been swallowed up by Chinese towns and cities in the last 10 years.'' John Scott, a Scottish Conservative MSP who farms in Ayrshire, goes further. "It's almost biblical," he says. "With all the wine lakes and butter mountains, we've had our 20 years of plenty since 1986.'' The prospect of global food shortages is now Malthusian, he suggests. One response from the UK and Scotland should be to grow more of our own food, and to try to reverse the decline in self-sufficiency from 75% in 1986 to 60% now.
It is possible for the UK, and the world, to feed itself, argues Robin Maynard from the Soil Association, but it will require big changes. He invokes the wartime spirit that saw gardens turned into allotments, and 50 mixed farms feeding Britain.
This is a wake-up call,'' he says. The choices we make now will determine whether we can feed ourselves in the future. If we get it right we can have a thriving food economy.'' Richard Lochhead, the Scottish government's environment secretary, has launched a public discussion to develop Scotland's first food policy. "I am conscious our generation has not experienced food shortages, but we should never take food for granted," he says.
"That is why the Scottish government will never allow food security to fall off the national agenda. We recognise the vital role of our primary producers in ensuring the long-term capacity and capability of our food supply."
Why are we growing food to feed cars instead of people?
The global drive for a new green fuel to power cars, lorries and planes is worsening world food shortages and threatening to make billions go hungry. Biofuels, enthusiastically backed by the US, UK and other European governments, have been sold as the solution to global warming. Making fuels from growing crops has been marketed as the way to cut climate pollution while continuing to drive.
But now experts are warning that this could all be a disastrous mistake. Converting large amounts of land to crops for biofuels is reducing food production just when the world needs to increase it.
Last year a quarter of the US maize crop was turned into ethanol to fuel vehicles - and the US supplies more than 60% of the world's maize exports. According to the World Bank, this is putting pressure on countries' precarious food supplies.
"The biofuels surge makes things worse by adding high demand on top of already high prices and low stocks," said one of the bank's leading economists, Don Mitchell. "Ethanol and biodiesel produced in the US and European Union don't appear to be delivering on green promises either, making them very controversial."
There are plans by more than 20 countries to boost production of biofuels over the next decade. The US is talking about trebling maize production for ethanol, while the European Union is aiming to make biofuels 10% of all transport fuels by 2020.
The dash for biofuels came under fire last week from the UK government's newly appointed chief scientific adviser, Professor John Beddington. In a speech in London on Thursday, he said that world food prices had already suffered a "major shock" as a result.
Biofuels were often unsustainable, he argued. "It's very hard to imagine how we can see the world growing enough crops to produce renewable energy and at the same time meet the enormous demand for food."
Some of the proposed biofuels schemes were "hopeless", warned Beddington, formerly professor of applied population biology at Imperial College, London. "The idea that you cut down rainforest to actually grow biofuels seems profoundly stupid."
The Conservative Party leader, David Cameron, has also weighed into the attack on biofuels. "They are not a panacea," he told the National Farmers' Union last month. "Unless they are truly sustainable, they may well harm the environment more than protect it."
Like environmentalists and organic food experts, Cameron latched on to one of the most telling statistics highlighting the competition between food and fuel. "You could feed a person for a whole year from the grain that produces just one tank of fuel for a sports utility vehicle (SUV)," he said.
The same figure was used by Robin Maynard, from the Soil Association, which certifies organic food. "The US currently grows one-sixth of its grain harvest for cars, which is madness," he told the Sunday Herald.
"It is perfectly possible for the world to feed itself, but it depends on how we are growing food. If we continue to grow crops to feed cars rather than people, we're in trouble."
FOOD WARS
A hungry world tests skills of peacemakers
By Michael Vatikiotis, For The Straits Times
WAR and hunger are inseparable: Experience has shown the close relationship between economic distress and the outbreak of conflict. But the solutions the international community tends to apply are mostly political and rarely address material needs.
So what happens when people are driven to kill one another for food? It's a critical question to ask as the world faces a sudden and unexpected food price crisis that is threatening to plunge millions back into poverty.
The spike in food prices this year has already led to violence. Food riots in parts of Africa and the Caribbean have created social and political instability. In rice-growing countries such as India, Vietnam and Thailand, hoarding has begun, with export bans creating inter-state friction.
Myanmar's rice-growing capacity has just been devastated by Cyclone Nargis, which will add to price pressures soon.
This is a crisis born of inflation and other market factors rather than fundamental shortages. Prices for the benchmark Thai variety of rice, a staple across much of Asia, have risen threefold within a year. Meat prices have risen by 60 per cent in Bangladesh, 45 per cent in Cambodia and 30 per cent in the Philippines. The World Food Programme calls the crisis a 'silent tsunami'.
The threat of conflict is real, both within and between states. as the trend towards liberalisation is suddenly reversed and replaced by subsidies, price-fixing cartels and export curbs. In Indonesia, a retired general recently warned: 'If students demonstrate it's not a worry. But if hungry people take to the streets - now that's dangerous.'
Hunger causes conflict when people feel they have nothing to lose and are willing to kill their neighbours over scarce resources. The peasant wars of the late 20th century in Central and South America and the wars that sprang from famine in Nigeria, Ethiopia and Sudan are reminders of man's most basic instinct, which is to fight to survive.
The trouble is that in terms of resolving conflict, we have come to rely less on material remedies and more on political artifice. Many internal conflicts that have been peacefully resolved in recent years only superficially addressed the material seeds of conflict. Peace deals have been elite affairs where leaders of armed groups reached an understanding on how to share power.
This approach is a sensible first step towards conflict resolution. By convincing people to lay down their arms, it becomes possible to start designing a wider range of policies to address socio- economic issues.
But the benefits of economic development the public expects trickle down slowly, if at all. Aceh in Indonesia, for example, remains poor, as does Mindanao in the Philippines - two areas of South-east Asia where peace was recently negotiated.
When hunger drives people into conflict, we might presume that peacemaking will be a question of providing food. We would be wrong. The experience of aid agencies in the 1970s and 1980s in Africa was that food aid tends to fuel conflict as the combatants seek to harness the supply of nutrition to the goals of war.
Experts say farmers will eventually adjust the supply of food to cope with higher demand so that prices stabilise. And there are signs that decades of improving cooperation between states is stimulating a collective urge to resolve the crisis.
The sharing of technology is key, says former United Nations chief Kofi Annan. He believes that farmers in Africa could double their food output in five to 10 years if rich countries partner them in a 'Green Revolution'.
But trade agreements and technological advances are slow-moving transformations. In the meantime, officials in India warn that rising food prices could plunge millions into poverty in a country that is already battling an internal Marxist insurgency.
So the immediate challenge is to prevent and resolve conflict arising from the food crisis. This places a significant burden on the international community to swiftly respond to outbreaks of violence. If people driven to war by hunger are less inclined to compromise, this would make the task of peacemaking more challenging. If conflict fuelled by hunger becomes more widespread, this will exert strain on international agencies involved in peacekeeping and humanitarian work.
Peacemakers need to be more aware of the socio-economic roots of conflict. They should incorporate in peace agreements remedies for these grievances and enlist the international community's support for their implementation. Such remedies should include addressing in a meaningful way issues such as land distribution, job creation as well as racial and ethnic discrimination.
The ethnic and religious wars of the 20th century have perhaps lulled us into a false sense of security. We have grown accustomed to resolving conflict by forging political compromises in situations where protagonists had much to lose materially if they kept on fighting. But in a world where the prices of staples can triple within months, it is harder to find grounds for compromise.
This calls for more effective negotiating skills both domestically and internationally, bilaterally as well as multilaterally. Markets must be kept open to assist with the flow of goods to crisis countries, and solutions must be found that address both elite and popular grievances.
The writer is Asia regional director for the Geneva-based Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008: The year of global food crisis
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2104849.0.2008
Scots Newspaper
The_year_of_global_food_crisis.php
Special report
By Kate Smith and Rob Edwards
Comment | Read Comments (154)
IT IS the new face of hunger. A perfect storm of food scarcity, global warming, rocketing oil prices and the world population explosion is plunging humanity into the biggest crisis of the 21st century by pushing up food prices and spreading hunger and poverty from rural areas into cities.
Millions more of the world's most vulnerable people are facing starvation as food shortages loom and crop prices spiral ever upwards.
And for the first time in history, say experts, the impact is spreading from the developing to the developed world.
More than 73 million people in 78 countries that depend on food handouts from the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) are facing reduced rations this year. The increasing scarcity of food is the biggest crisis looming for the world'', according to WFP officials.
At the same time, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation has warned that rising prices have triggered a food crisis in 36 countries, all of which will need extra help. The threat of malnutrition is the world's forgotten problem'', says the World Bank as it demands urgent action.
The bank points out that global food prices have risen by 75% since 2000, while wheat prices have increased by 200%. The cost of other staples such as rice and soya bean have also hit record highs, while corn is at its most expensive in 12 years.
The increasing cost of grains is also pushing up the price of meat, poultry, eggs and dairy products. And there is every likelihood prices will continue their relentless rise, according to expert predictions by the UN and developed countries.
High prices have already prompted a string of food protests around the world, with tortilla riots in Mexico, disputes over food rationing in West Bengal and protests over grain prices in Senegal, Mauritania and other parts of Africa. In Yemen, children have marched to highlight their hunger, while in London last week hundreds of pig farmers protested outside Downing Street.
If prices keep rising, more and more people around the globe will be unable to afford the food they need to stay alive, and without help they will become desperate. More food riots will flare up, governments will totter and millions could die.
Food scarcity means a big increase in the number of people going hungry,'' says the WFP's Greg Barrow. Without doubt, we are passing through a difficult period for the world's hungry poor.'' The WFP estimates it needs an additional $500 million to keep feeding the 73 million people in Africa, Asia and central America who require its help. We need extra money by the middle of 2008 so we don't have to reduce rations,'' says Barrow.
He also points out that age-old patterns of famine are changing. "We are feeding communities of people we didn't expect to feed," he explains.
As well as being rural, the profile of the new hungry poor is also urban, which is new. There is food available in the markets and shops - it's just that these people can't afford to buy it. This is the new face of hunger.'' The food shortages will also affect western industrialised nations such as Scotland, Barrow says. Scarcity means that some foods will get very expensive, or disappear from supermarkets altogether, meaning a move to seasonal, indigenous vegetables.'' Of the 36 countries named last month as currently facing a food crisis, 21 are in Africa. Lesotho and Swaziland have been afflicted by droughts, Sierra Leone lacks widespread access to food markets because of low incomes and high prices, and Ghana, Kenya and Chad among others are enduring "severe localised food insecurity".
In India last year, more than 25,000 farmers took their own lives, driven to despair by grain shortages and farming debts. "The spectre of food grain imports stares India in the face as agricultural growth plunges to an all-time low," warns India Today magazine.
The World Bank predicts global demand for food will double by 2030. This is partly because the world's population is expected to grow by three billion by 2050, but that is only one of many interlocking causes.
The rise in global temperatures caused by pollution is also beginning to disrupt food production in many countries. According to the UN, an area of fertile soil the size of Ukraine is lost every year because of drought, deforestation and climate instability.
Last year Australia experienced its worst drought for over a century, and saw its wheat crop shrink by 60%. China's grain harvest has also fallen by 10% over the past seven years.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted that, over the next 100 years, a one-metre rise in sea levels would flood almost a third of the world's crop-growing land.
A recent analysis by the Conservative Party leader, David Cameron, also pinned blame for the global food crunch'' on the accelerating demand for allegedly green biofuels and the world's growing appetite for meat.
Meat is a very inefficient way of utilising land to produce food, delivering far fewer calories, acre for acre, than grain. But the amount of meat eaten by the average Chinese consumer has increased from 20 kilograms a year in 1985 to over 50 kilograms today. The demand for meat from across all developing countries has doubled since 1980.
The world's grain stocks are at their lowest for 30 years, Cameron warns. "Some analysts are beginning to make some very worrying, very stark predictions. And these analysts say politicians should start to rank the issue of food security alongside energy security and even national security."
Another key driver is the soaring cost of oil, which last week topped $105 a barrel for the first time. As well as increasing transport costs, oil makes crop fertilisers more expensive.
According to the World Bank, fertiliser prices have risen 150% in the past five years. This has had a major impact on food prices, as the cost of fertiliser contributes over a quarter of the overall cost of grain production in the US, which is responsible for 40% of world grain exports.
Tackling hunger has become a "forgotten" UN millennium development goal, says the bank's president, Robert Zoellick.
But increased food prices and their threat - not only to people but also to political stability - have made it a matter of urgency," he says.
Scottish farmers warn that food security is becoming an issue for the first time since the second world war. This is a perfect storm and the effects are being felt right now," says James Withers, the acting chief executive of the National Farmers' Union in Scotland.
"At the same time as demand for food increases, the amount of land we have available to grow food on is reducing," he adds. "An area twice the size of Scotland's entire agricultural area has been swallowed up by Chinese towns and cities in the last 10 years.'' John Scott, a Scottish Conservative MSP who farms in Ayrshire, goes further. "It's almost biblical," he says. "With all the wine lakes and butter mountains, we've had our 20 years of plenty since 1986.'' The prospect of global food shortages is now Malthusian, he suggests. One response from the UK and Scotland should be to grow more of our own food, and to try to reverse the decline in self-sufficiency from 75% in 1986 to 60% now.
It is possible for the UK, and the world, to feed itself, argues Robin Maynard from the Soil Association, but it will require big changes. He invokes the wartime spirit that saw gardens turned into allotments, and 50 mixed farms feeding Britain.
This is a wake-up call,'' he says. The choices we make now will determine whether we can feed ourselves in the future. If we get it right we can have a thriving food economy.'' Richard Lochhead, the Scottish government's environment secretary, has launched a public discussion to develop Scotland's first food policy. "I am conscious our generation has not experienced food shortages, but we should never take food for granted," he says.
"That is why the Scottish government will never allow food security to fall off the national agenda. We recognise the vital role of our primary producers in ensuring the long-term capacity and capability of our food supply."
Why are we growing food to feed cars instead of people?
The global drive for a new green fuel to power cars, lorries and planes is worsening world food shortages and threatening to make billions go hungry. Biofuels, enthusiastically backed by the US, UK and other European governments, have been sold as the solution to global warming. Making fuels from growing crops has been marketed as the way to cut climate pollution while continuing to drive.
But now experts are warning that this could all be a disastrous mistake. Converting large amounts of land to crops for biofuels is reducing food production just when the world needs to increase it.
Last year a quarter of the US maize crop was turned into ethanol to fuel vehicles - and the US supplies more than 60% of the world's maize exports. According to the World Bank, this is putting pressure on countries' precarious food supplies.
"The biofuels surge makes things worse by adding high demand on top of already high prices and low stocks," said one of the bank's leading economists, Don Mitchell. "Ethanol and biodiesel produced in the US and European Union don't appear to be delivering on green promises either, making them very controversial."
There are plans by more than 20 countries to boost production of biofuels over the next decade. The US is talking about trebling maize production for ethanol, while the European Union is aiming to make biofuels 10% of all transport fuels by 2020.
The dash for biofuels came under fire last week from the UK government's newly appointed chief scientific adviser, Professor John Beddington. In a speech in London on Thursday, he said that world food prices had already suffered a "major shock" as a result.
Biofuels were often unsustainable, he argued. "It's very hard to imagine how we can see the world growing enough crops to produce renewable energy and at the same time meet the enormous demand for food."
Some of the proposed biofuels schemes were "hopeless", warned Beddington, formerly professor of applied population biology at Imperial College, London. "The idea that you cut down rainforest to actually grow biofuels seems profoundly stupid."
The Conservative Party leader, David Cameron, has also weighed into the attack on biofuels. "They are not a panacea," he told the National Farmers' Union last month. "Unless they are truly sustainable, they may well harm the environment more than protect it."
Like environmentalists and organic food experts, Cameron latched on to one of the most telling statistics highlighting the competition between food and fuel. "You could feed a person for a whole year from the grain that produces just one tank of fuel for a sports utility vehicle (SUV)," he said.
The same figure was used by Robin Maynard, from the Soil Association, which certifies organic food. "The US currently grows one-sixth of its grain harvest for cars, which is madness," he told the Sunday Herald.
"It is perfectly possible for the world to feed itself, but it depends on how we are growing food. If we continue to grow crops to feed cars rather than people, we're in trouble."
Monday, May 26, 2008
Disaster in Governance - Nargis
May 22, 2008
A DISASTER IN GOVERNANCE
Pity the masses
By Nyi Nyi Kyaw, For The Straits Times
'IT SHOULD be a simple matter. It's not a matter of politics. It's a matter of a humanitarian crisis,' said US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
She was reacting to the Myanmar government's initial refusal to allow foreign relief aid to reach its cyclone-hit population. Dr Rice's comment exemplifies the two-dimensional disaster facing the Myanmar people: They are suffering from not only a natural calamity, but also a disaster in governance.
Natural disasters are inevitable. But there is expertise that can anticipate or contain their fallouts. For example, when strong storms are approaching, scientists can track them and predict their time of occurrence and destructibility. This information is usually shared freely with countries which lack such expertise.
The Indian Meteorological Department had warned the Myanmar authorities of Cyclone Nargis' track and severity 48 hours before it struck.
Also, most countries are now able to reduce the degree of devastation that natural disasters cause. Relief efforts can be immediately put in place to alleviate suffering. Dead bodies can be removed promptly to prevent the outbreak of diseases. Broken transport and communication systems can be repaired so that relief aid can reach the most severely hit people and places. Food and water can be distributed to the hungry and thirsty.
The junta has neglected to do any of these things. Myanmar is proof that when a natural disaster meets a disaster in governance, the impact on human suffering is enormous.
The junta manifested its irresponsibility and neglect both before and after Nargis hit. It failed to send warnings and make proper preparations, such as evacuating those in Nargis' path. Worse, it did not provide any significant support to the stricken areas. It also blocked international humanitarian assistance in many ways. Governance disaster made the natural disaster infinitely worse.
According to the UN, at least one million cyclone survivors have been without any aid for more than a week. Meanwhile, epidemiologists warn that contagious diseases will kill many more people if relief is further delayed.
Many outbreaks of contagious diseases in the Irrawaddy delta caused by a lack of clean water and preventive medicine have already been reported.
The international agency Oxfam has predicted that up to 1.5 million lives will be put at risk if proper measures are not taken now.
The World Food Programme has warned that Myanmar has less than 10 per cent of the staff, material and general logistical apparatus needed to manage a crisis like this. Worse, less than 20 per cent of the food needed has been distributed.
Yet, the junta still continues to delay relief aid, although it has eased some restrictions in recent days, and some aid has been distributed.
But during this huge crisis, the military regime exposed its inner will by holding a referendum on its newly written Constitution. It was a cunning effort on its part to document its hold on power. Many within and without the country, including UN Secretary-general Ban Ki Moon, urged the junta to postpone the May 10 referendum, to no avail.
Foreigners were not allowed to observe the referendum, and voters report widespread cheating at polling stations. The junta's insistence on holding the referendum was a clear sign of its disregard for its people's welfare.
Calls for humanitarian intervention have emerged, with some preferring negotiations with and pressure on the junta through governments friendly to Myanmar.
Whatever the approach, the most important thing is to prevent a looming public health crisis. No more time wasting.
The writer is a native of Myanmar. He is studying at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU.
A DISASTER IN GOVERNANCE
Pity the masses
By Nyi Nyi Kyaw, For The Straits Times
'IT SHOULD be a simple matter. It's not a matter of politics. It's a matter of a humanitarian crisis,' said US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
She was reacting to the Myanmar government's initial refusal to allow foreign relief aid to reach its cyclone-hit population. Dr Rice's comment exemplifies the two-dimensional disaster facing the Myanmar people: They are suffering from not only a natural calamity, but also a disaster in governance.
Natural disasters are inevitable. But there is expertise that can anticipate or contain their fallouts. For example, when strong storms are approaching, scientists can track them and predict their time of occurrence and destructibility. This information is usually shared freely with countries which lack such expertise.
The Indian Meteorological Department had warned the Myanmar authorities of Cyclone Nargis' track and severity 48 hours before it struck.
Also, most countries are now able to reduce the degree of devastation that natural disasters cause. Relief efforts can be immediately put in place to alleviate suffering. Dead bodies can be removed promptly to prevent the outbreak of diseases. Broken transport and communication systems can be repaired so that relief aid can reach the most severely hit people and places. Food and water can be distributed to the hungry and thirsty.
The junta has neglected to do any of these things. Myanmar is proof that when a natural disaster meets a disaster in governance, the impact on human suffering is enormous.
The junta manifested its irresponsibility and neglect both before and after Nargis hit. It failed to send warnings and make proper preparations, such as evacuating those in Nargis' path. Worse, it did not provide any significant support to the stricken areas. It also blocked international humanitarian assistance in many ways. Governance disaster made the natural disaster infinitely worse.
According to the UN, at least one million cyclone survivors have been without any aid for more than a week. Meanwhile, epidemiologists warn that contagious diseases will kill many more people if relief is further delayed.
Many outbreaks of contagious diseases in the Irrawaddy delta caused by a lack of clean water and preventive medicine have already been reported.
The international agency Oxfam has predicted that up to 1.5 million lives will be put at risk if proper measures are not taken now.
The World Food Programme has warned that Myanmar has less than 10 per cent of the staff, material and general logistical apparatus needed to manage a crisis like this. Worse, less than 20 per cent of the food needed has been distributed.
Yet, the junta still continues to delay relief aid, although it has eased some restrictions in recent days, and some aid has been distributed.
But during this huge crisis, the military regime exposed its inner will by holding a referendum on its newly written Constitution. It was a cunning effort on its part to document its hold on power. Many within and without the country, including UN Secretary-general Ban Ki Moon, urged the junta to postpone the May 10 referendum, to no avail.
Foreigners were not allowed to observe the referendum, and voters report widespread cheating at polling stations. The junta's insistence on holding the referendum was a clear sign of its disregard for its people's welfare.
Calls for humanitarian intervention have emerged, with some preferring negotiations with and pressure on the junta through governments friendly to Myanmar.
Whatever the approach, the most important thing is to prevent a looming public health crisis. No more time wasting.
The writer is a native of Myanmar. He is studying at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU.
ASEAN Bridges the DIfferences - ST
CYCLONE NARGIS AFTERMATH
Asean bridges the differences
By Rodolfo C. Severino, For The Straits Times
May 22, 2008
ASEAN foreign ministers met in Singapore earlier this week to discuss the situation in Myanmar following the devastation wrought by Cyclone Nargis. They had set out to do three things.
First, they were to update one another on the situation.
Second, they were to hear the report of the Asean Emergency Rapid Assessment Team that had been working in Myanmar since May 9.
Third, they were to coordinate the assistance that several Asean member countries had extended to Myanmar. They were also to see how Asean aid could fit into the larger international effort, an effort that itself needed coordination.
A fourth purpose of the ministers' meeting, in the minds of many, was to see how Asean could help sort out the disagreements between the United States and some European countries, on one side, and the Myanmar government, on the other, over the role of foreign nationals, including military personnel, within the Irrawaddy delta disaster area.
The donor governments were insisting that their own people handle the aid distribution. But the Myanmar authorities seemed to be suspicious of the political motives of the donor governments, many of which had been expressing hostility towards them for years.
The Asean ministers' meeting did succeed on all these counts. Nevertheless, the observation of some that the meeting should have taken place earlier was valid.
Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo himself acknowledged this.
'We wished it could have been done sooner,' he said. 'But given the magnitude of the disaster and the decisions taken by the (Myanmar) government, we are happy to have reached this point today. Better late than never.'
The ministers heard from their Myanmar colleague not only a report on the situation and the extent of the damage, but also of his government's positions on the issues raised by Asean and others in the international community.
The ministers also received the report from the Emergency Rapid Assessment Team. It recommended closer coordination between aid workers and the Myanmar government, the deployment of specialised equipment and personnel from the global community, the immediate delivery of building materials and a mechanism for the urgent supply of clean water.
The team also called for the immediate provision of health care, ensuring the capacity of the farmers in the Irrawaddy delta to plant and harvest rice, and the quick establishment of temporary schools.
Mr Yeo, who chaired the meeting, said at its conclusion: 'Myanmar is...prepared to accept the expertise of the international and regional agencies to help in its rehabilitation efforts.' But he warned: 'International assistance to Myanmar, given through Asean, should not be politicised. On that basis, Myanmar will accept international assistance.'
The ministers agreed to set up a task force, headed by Asean Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan, to 'work closely' with the United Nations and the Myanmar government in an 'Asean-led mechanism'.
On the same day the ministers met, Asean and the UN announced they would jointly convene a ministerial-level pledging conference in Yangon on Sunday.
The Asean ministers succeeded, late though they may have been, in taking the lead in the global effort to help the victims of Cyclone Nargis. They seem to have broken the impasse between the political imperatives of some donor states and the suspicious outlook of the Myanmar authorities.
Asean is mobilising the modest resources of its member countries and taking the lead in coordinating the substantial contributions of the rest of the international community.
----------------
CYCLONE NARGIS AFTERMATH
Tugging on the world's conscience
By Hannah Ruth Chia, For The Straits Times
AFTER years of blissful ignorance, the world finally woke up to the situation in Myanmar last year, when its people, led by the country's monks, took to the streets to protest against the military junta that has ruled with an iron fist for more than 40 years.
The junta responded swiftly, and the rebellion was crushed. Even the monks, so revered in Myanmar society, were not spared. The world then forgot about Myanmar - until Cyclone Nargis struck with such force on May 3.
The catastrophe that has hit Myanmar and its aftermath were no different from any other such disasters. Countries pledged aid and made plans to send relief workers.
However, even with some 100,000 people dead and an estimated two million in desperate need of help, the country's ruling junta, led by 75-year-old Senior General Than Shwe, decided to reject visa applications for disaster experts and aid workers.
Flights bringing food and medical supplies were turned away because there were reporters and aid workers on board. Food cargo from the World Food Programme was impounded.
Aid workers who were in the country before the cyclone struck are working hard to distribute aid, but a lack of manpower and logistical problems mean that relief has reached only a quarter of those who need it.
TIMELY REMINDER
The world should remember the international doctrine of the 'Responsibility to Protect' or R2P...One of the two basic principles of the R2P is: 'Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect.'
Up until Monday, the junta was insisting that it wanted only cash and aid, not personnel. Visas are still pending for dozens of aid workers waiting in Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur. While more aid and aid workers are finally being allowed in, their numbers are not large enough to cope with a calamity of this scale.
In the meantime, the junta went ahead with a referendum for a new Constitution on May 10, although it did delay the vote in areas affected by the cyclone.
Military trucks, which could have been used to deliver aid, were instead seen driving through the streets urging people to vote in favour of the new Constitution.
The estimated half a million soldiers in the Myanmar military who were rapidly deployed during last year's protests are sparse on the ground. Instead, civilians and monks are helping with most of the humanitarian efforts.
Perhaps the junta, holed up in its remote capital of Naypyidaw, has not fully grasped the scale of the crisis.
The more likely explanation is that it is more concerned with cementing its power. Its rejection of foreign disaster experts and aid workers is merely a manifestation of its xenophobia.
Asean, of which Myanmar is a member, had, until recently, remained largely silent on the junta's rejection of outside help. Individual governments expressed concern, and the Thai government was fashioned into an intermediary between the military junta and the international community.
Individual states such as Singapore and Thailand sent aid, which was accepted by the junta.
Although Myanmar allowed a team of disaster experts from Asean into the country to assess the damage last week, millions of lives remain at risk.
The last time Asean members were faced with a natural disaster of this scale was the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004. The governments of the affected countries, including Indonesia, readily admitted that they needed help and opened their doors to external aid.
Singapore called for a regional summit to discuss long-term infrastructure development in the devastated areas. The summit produced real results.
Even as more accounts of the abuse of international aid came out of Myanmar, Asean foreign ministers met in Singapore earlier this week to 'discuss the humanitarian situation in Myanmar and consider how best to assist Myanmar in its relief and recovery efforts'. Myanmar's Foreign Minister, Mr Nyan Win, was at the meeting.
Some progress was made, with Myanmar agreeing to allow international aid into the country through Asean. It was also announced that Asean medical teams would be allowed into the country immediately.
While this is a positive step, the responsibility to channel international aid into Myanmar falls upon just nine countries, some of which are not rich or developed enough for the enormous task.
The capacity of Asean to provide urgent medical aid and recovery in order to avoid a looming health catastrophe is questionable.
Additionally, the military junta in Myanmar would remain in control of the distribution of aid.
With some 2-1/2 million people still in urgent need of help, it remains to be seen if the aid will reach all of them.
The international community remains divided over how best to handle the crisis.
The United States and some members of the European Union - including the Britain, France, Germany and Denmark - have not ruled out 'humanitarian intervention'.
But this could exacerbate the situation and make life worse for those who accept the aid. It could also lead to some form of military crackdown or cause the junta to close the borders completely.
Asean remains opposed to forced delivery of aid, largely due to its principle of non-intervention in the affairs of its member states.
But if the situation in Myanmar does not improve despite Asean's efforts - and if Asean is seen to be unwilling to act more forcefully - it could find itself being undermined by extra-regional powers, should those powers decide to go ahead with forced intervention, regardless of the grouping's position on the matter.
The world should remember the international doctrine of the 'Responsibility to Protect', or R2P, which all member states of the United Nations reached consensus on in 2005.
One of the two basic principles of the R2P is: 'Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect.'
We must recognise that even as limited progress is being made, and the disaster moves away from the front pages of newspapers - where the Myanmar tragedy has already been displaced by the Chinese earthquake - more people are at risk from disease and starvation in Myanmar.
The situation is such that it may be more prudent to act now and ask the theoretical questions later.
The writer is a research analyst with the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University.
The writer, a former Asean secretary-general, is head of the Asean Studies Centre at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Asean bridges the differences
By Rodolfo C. Severino, For The Straits Times
May 22, 2008
ASEAN foreign ministers met in Singapore earlier this week to discuss the situation in Myanmar following the devastation wrought by Cyclone Nargis. They had set out to do three things.
First, they were to update one another on the situation.
Second, they were to hear the report of the Asean Emergency Rapid Assessment Team that had been working in Myanmar since May 9.
Third, they were to coordinate the assistance that several Asean member countries had extended to Myanmar. They were also to see how Asean aid could fit into the larger international effort, an effort that itself needed coordination.
A fourth purpose of the ministers' meeting, in the minds of many, was to see how Asean could help sort out the disagreements between the United States and some European countries, on one side, and the Myanmar government, on the other, over the role of foreign nationals, including military personnel, within the Irrawaddy delta disaster area.
The donor governments were insisting that their own people handle the aid distribution. But the Myanmar authorities seemed to be suspicious of the political motives of the donor governments, many of which had been expressing hostility towards them for years.
The Asean ministers' meeting did succeed on all these counts. Nevertheless, the observation of some that the meeting should have taken place earlier was valid.
Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo himself acknowledged this.
'We wished it could have been done sooner,' he said. 'But given the magnitude of the disaster and the decisions taken by the (Myanmar) government, we are happy to have reached this point today. Better late than never.'
The ministers heard from their Myanmar colleague not only a report on the situation and the extent of the damage, but also of his government's positions on the issues raised by Asean and others in the international community.
The ministers also received the report from the Emergency Rapid Assessment Team. It recommended closer coordination between aid workers and the Myanmar government, the deployment of specialised equipment and personnel from the global community, the immediate delivery of building materials and a mechanism for the urgent supply of clean water.
The team also called for the immediate provision of health care, ensuring the capacity of the farmers in the Irrawaddy delta to plant and harvest rice, and the quick establishment of temporary schools.
Mr Yeo, who chaired the meeting, said at its conclusion: 'Myanmar is...prepared to accept the expertise of the international and regional agencies to help in its rehabilitation efforts.' But he warned: 'International assistance to Myanmar, given through Asean, should not be politicised. On that basis, Myanmar will accept international assistance.'
The ministers agreed to set up a task force, headed by Asean Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan, to 'work closely' with the United Nations and the Myanmar government in an 'Asean-led mechanism'.
On the same day the ministers met, Asean and the UN announced they would jointly convene a ministerial-level pledging conference in Yangon on Sunday.
The Asean ministers succeeded, late though they may have been, in taking the lead in the global effort to help the victims of Cyclone Nargis. They seem to have broken the impasse between the political imperatives of some donor states and the suspicious outlook of the Myanmar authorities.
Asean is mobilising the modest resources of its member countries and taking the lead in coordinating the substantial contributions of the rest of the international community.
----------------
CYCLONE NARGIS AFTERMATH
Tugging on the world's conscience
By Hannah Ruth Chia, For The Straits Times
AFTER years of blissful ignorance, the world finally woke up to the situation in Myanmar last year, when its people, led by the country's monks, took to the streets to protest against the military junta that has ruled with an iron fist for more than 40 years.
The junta responded swiftly, and the rebellion was crushed. Even the monks, so revered in Myanmar society, were not spared. The world then forgot about Myanmar - until Cyclone Nargis struck with such force on May 3.
The catastrophe that has hit Myanmar and its aftermath were no different from any other such disasters. Countries pledged aid and made plans to send relief workers.
However, even with some 100,000 people dead and an estimated two million in desperate need of help, the country's ruling junta, led by 75-year-old Senior General Than Shwe, decided to reject visa applications for disaster experts and aid workers.
Flights bringing food and medical supplies were turned away because there were reporters and aid workers on board. Food cargo from the World Food Programme was impounded.
Aid workers who were in the country before the cyclone struck are working hard to distribute aid, but a lack of manpower and logistical problems mean that relief has reached only a quarter of those who need it.
TIMELY REMINDER
The world should remember the international doctrine of the 'Responsibility to Protect' or R2P...One of the two basic principles of the R2P is: 'Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect.'
Up until Monday, the junta was insisting that it wanted only cash and aid, not personnel. Visas are still pending for dozens of aid workers waiting in Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur. While more aid and aid workers are finally being allowed in, their numbers are not large enough to cope with a calamity of this scale.
In the meantime, the junta went ahead with a referendum for a new Constitution on May 10, although it did delay the vote in areas affected by the cyclone.
Military trucks, which could have been used to deliver aid, were instead seen driving through the streets urging people to vote in favour of the new Constitution.
The estimated half a million soldiers in the Myanmar military who were rapidly deployed during last year's protests are sparse on the ground. Instead, civilians and monks are helping with most of the humanitarian efforts.
Perhaps the junta, holed up in its remote capital of Naypyidaw, has not fully grasped the scale of the crisis.
The more likely explanation is that it is more concerned with cementing its power. Its rejection of foreign disaster experts and aid workers is merely a manifestation of its xenophobia.
Asean, of which Myanmar is a member, had, until recently, remained largely silent on the junta's rejection of outside help. Individual governments expressed concern, and the Thai government was fashioned into an intermediary between the military junta and the international community.
Individual states such as Singapore and Thailand sent aid, which was accepted by the junta.
Although Myanmar allowed a team of disaster experts from Asean into the country to assess the damage last week, millions of lives remain at risk.
The last time Asean members were faced with a natural disaster of this scale was the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004. The governments of the affected countries, including Indonesia, readily admitted that they needed help and opened their doors to external aid.
Singapore called for a regional summit to discuss long-term infrastructure development in the devastated areas. The summit produced real results.
Even as more accounts of the abuse of international aid came out of Myanmar, Asean foreign ministers met in Singapore earlier this week to 'discuss the humanitarian situation in Myanmar and consider how best to assist Myanmar in its relief and recovery efforts'. Myanmar's Foreign Minister, Mr Nyan Win, was at the meeting.
Some progress was made, with Myanmar agreeing to allow international aid into the country through Asean. It was also announced that Asean medical teams would be allowed into the country immediately.
While this is a positive step, the responsibility to channel international aid into Myanmar falls upon just nine countries, some of which are not rich or developed enough for the enormous task.
The capacity of Asean to provide urgent medical aid and recovery in order to avoid a looming health catastrophe is questionable.
Additionally, the military junta in Myanmar would remain in control of the distribution of aid.
With some 2-1/2 million people still in urgent need of help, it remains to be seen if the aid will reach all of them.
The international community remains divided over how best to handle the crisis.
The United States and some members of the European Union - including the Britain, France, Germany and Denmark - have not ruled out 'humanitarian intervention'.
But this could exacerbate the situation and make life worse for those who accept the aid. It could also lead to some form of military crackdown or cause the junta to close the borders completely.
Asean remains opposed to forced delivery of aid, largely due to its principle of non-intervention in the affairs of its member states.
But if the situation in Myanmar does not improve despite Asean's efforts - and if Asean is seen to be unwilling to act more forcefully - it could find itself being undermined by extra-regional powers, should those powers decide to go ahead with forced intervention, regardless of the grouping's position on the matter.
The world should remember the international doctrine of the 'Responsibility to Protect', or R2P, which all member states of the United Nations reached consensus on in 2005.
One of the two basic principles of the R2P is: 'Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect.'
We must recognise that even as limited progress is being made, and the disaster moves away from the front pages of newspapers - where the Myanmar tragedy has already been displaced by the Chinese earthquake - more people are at risk from disease and starvation in Myanmar.
The situation is such that it may be more prudent to act now and ask the theoretical questions later.
The writer is a research analyst with the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University.
The writer, a former Asean secretary-general, is head of the Asean Studies Centre at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
ASEAN Bridges the DIfferences - ST
CYCLONE NARGIS AFTERMATH
Asean bridges the differences
By Rodolfo C. Severino, For The Straits Times
May 22, 2008
ASEAN foreign ministers met in Singapore earlier this week to discuss the situation in Myanmar following the devastation wrought by Cyclone Nargis. They had set out to do three things.
First, they were to update one another on the situation.
Second, they were to hear the report of the Asean Emergency Rapid Assessment Team that had been working in Myanmar since May 9.
Third, they were to coordinate the assistance that several Asean member countries had extended to Myanmar. They were also to see how Asean aid could fit into the larger international effort, an effort that itself needed coordination.
A fourth purpose of the ministers' meeting, in the minds of many, was to see how Asean could help sort out the disagreements between the United States and some European countries, on one side, and the Myanmar government, on the other, over the role of foreign nationals, including military personnel, within the Irrawaddy delta disaster area.
The donor governments were insisting that their own people handle the aid distribution. But the Myanmar authorities seemed to be suspicious of the political motives of the donor governments, many of which had been expressing hostility towards them for years.
The Asean ministers' meeting did succeed on all these counts. Nevertheless, the observation of some that the meeting should have taken place earlier was valid.
Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo himself acknowledged this.
'We wished it could have been done sooner,' he said. 'But given the magnitude of the disaster and the decisions taken by the (Myanmar) government, we are happy to have reached this point today. Better late than never.'
The ministers heard from their Myanmar colleague not only a report on the situation and the extent of the damage, but also of his government's positions on the issues raised by Asean and others in the international community.
The ministers also received the report from the Emergency Rapid Assessment Team. It recommended closer coordination between aid workers and the Myanmar government, the deployment of specialised equipment and personnel from the global community, the immediate delivery of building materials and a mechanism for the urgent supply of clean water.
The team also called for the immediate provision of health care, ensuring the capacity of the farmers in the Irrawaddy delta to plant and harvest rice, and the quick establishment of temporary schools.
Mr Yeo, who chaired the meeting, said at its conclusion: 'Myanmar is...prepared to accept the expertise of the international and regional agencies to help in its rehabilitation efforts.' But he warned: 'International assistance to Myanmar, given through Asean, should not be politicised. On that basis, Myanmar will accept international assistance.'
The ministers agreed to set up a task force, headed by Asean Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan, to 'work closely' with the United Nations and the Myanmar government in an 'Asean-led mechanism'.
On the same day the ministers met, Asean and the UN announced they would jointly convene a ministerial-level pledging conference in Yangon on Sunday.
The Asean ministers succeeded, late though they may have been, in taking the lead in the global effort to help the victims of Cyclone Nargis. They seem to have broken the impasse between the political imperatives of some donor states and the suspicious outlook of the Myanmar authorities.
Asean is mobilising the modest resources of its member countries and taking the lead in coordinating the substantial contributions of the rest of the international community.
The writer, a former Asean secretary-general, is head of the Asean Studies Centre at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Asean bridges the differences
By Rodolfo C. Severino, For The Straits Times
May 22, 2008
ASEAN foreign ministers met in Singapore earlier this week to discuss the situation in Myanmar following the devastation wrought by Cyclone Nargis. They had set out to do three things.
First, they were to update one another on the situation.
Second, they were to hear the report of the Asean Emergency Rapid Assessment Team that had been working in Myanmar since May 9.
Third, they were to coordinate the assistance that several Asean member countries had extended to Myanmar. They were also to see how Asean aid could fit into the larger international effort, an effort that itself needed coordination.
A fourth purpose of the ministers' meeting, in the minds of many, was to see how Asean could help sort out the disagreements between the United States and some European countries, on one side, and the Myanmar government, on the other, over the role of foreign nationals, including military personnel, within the Irrawaddy delta disaster area.
The donor governments were insisting that their own people handle the aid distribution. But the Myanmar authorities seemed to be suspicious of the political motives of the donor governments, many of which had been expressing hostility towards them for years.
The Asean ministers' meeting did succeed on all these counts. Nevertheless, the observation of some that the meeting should have taken place earlier was valid.
Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo himself acknowledged this.
'We wished it could have been done sooner,' he said. 'But given the magnitude of the disaster and the decisions taken by the (Myanmar) government, we are happy to have reached this point today. Better late than never.'
The ministers heard from their Myanmar colleague not only a report on the situation and the extent of the damage, but also of his government's positions on the issues raised by Asean and others in the international community.
The ministers also received the report from the Emergency Rapid Assessment Team. It recommended closer coordination between aid workers and the Myanmar government, the deployment of specialised equipment and personnel from the global community, the immediate delivery of building materials and a mechanism for the urgent supply of clean water.
The team also called for the immediate provision of health care, ensuring the capacity of the farmers in the Irrawaddy delta to plant and harvest rice, and the quick establishment of temporary schools.
Mr Yeo, who chaired the meeting, said at its conclusion: 'Myanmar is...prepared to accept the expertise of the international and regional agencies to help in its rehabilitation efforts.' But he warned: 'International assistance to Myanmar, given through Asean, should not be politicised. On that basis, Myanmar will accept international assistance.'
The ministers agreed to set up a task force, headed by Asean Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan, to 'work closely' with the United Nations and the Myanmar government in an 'Asean-led mechanism'.
On the same day the ministers met, Asean and the UN announced they would jointly convene a ministerial-level pledging conference in Yangon on Sunday.
The Asean ministers succeeded, late though they may have been, in taking the lead in the global effort to help the victims of Cyclone Nargis. They seem to have broken the impasse between the political imperatives of some donor states and the suspicious outlook of the Myanmar authorities.
Asean is mobilising the modest resources of its member countries and taking the lead in coordinating the substantial contributions of the rest of the international community.
The writer, a former Asean secretary-general, is head of the Asean Studies Centre at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Dissent threatens Shangri-La
May 20, 2008
THE TIBET ISSUE
Dissent threatens Shangri-La
By Nicholas D. Kristof
XIAHE (CHINA) - A TIBETAN monk, recently out of jail and still in pain from beatings by the police, said he reveres the Dalai Lama, but also regards him as a political failure.
'We think the Dalai Lama has been too peaceful,' he said. 'There is a big discussion now about whether we should turn to violence.'
Another monk at Labrang Monastery here in Xiahe, on the Tibetan plateau, put it this way: 'For 50 years, the Dalai Lama said to use peaceful means to solve the problems, and that achieved nothing. China just criticises him. After he is gone, there definitely will be violent resistance.'
This impatience seems widespread among young Tibetans, and the rioting and protests across ethnic Tibetan areas of China in the past few months may be a turning point. Unless the Tibet question is resolved, we may see a Tibetan equivalent of the Irish Republican Army or Hamas.
A crackdown is under way in greater Tibet, as I found when I slipped into the area in the back of a car with local licence plates.
China's heavy hand is adding to the antagonism: The authorities are confiscating pictures of the Dalai Lama, beating and forcing monks to attend 'patriotic study' classes - up to two hours a day, six days a week - full of propaganda praising the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and denouncing the exiled spiritual leader.
'That just turns us against China more than ever,' one monk said.
The gulf between Tibetans and the Han Chinese ethnic majority has never been greater. Television images of Tibetans in Lhasa attacking Chinese civilians - devoid of any context of decades of repression - left many Chinese more hardline than the CCP.
'Most of us think the policy towards Tibetans has been too soft,' said a Han Chinese man in Qinghai province who often travels in Tibetan areas.
'They get all kinds of special preferences, but they are just not as hardworking, and they drink too much.
' And then after we help them so much, they riot against us. So most of us think the policy towards Tibetans should be stricter.'
The recent uprising by Tibetans underscores the utter failure of Beijing's policies in Tibet. But it also reflects the failure of the Dalai Lama and of the United States.
The Dalai Lama has played a waiting game, but as China gains global power - and as more Han Chinese flood into Tibet - that has been a losing strategy. The Dalai Lama has won acclaim internationally, but that only triggers the deep Chinese sensitivity to foreign bullying and has thus antagonised the audience that may count the most: China.
The Dalai Lama missed some opportunities by neglecting outreach by then general secretary Hu Yaobang in 1981, by spurning an invitation to China in 1989 and by announcing the choice of the Panchen Lama in a way that Beijing felt insulting.
When the Dalai Lama and those around him refer to 'genocide' or claim roughly one-quarter of China as Tibet, they also undercut Chinese moderates.
As for the US, it may have made things worse.
Mr Melvyn Goldstein of Case Western Reserve University, whose book The Snow Lion And The Dragon remains the best introduction to Tibet, writes that the US has hurt the interests of Tibetans: Its symbolic gestures have encouraged unrealistic Tibetan dreams of independence, and Washington has neglected the serious diplomatic work - both with China and the Dalai Lama - that might actually improve the lives of Tibetans.
China and the Dalai Lama both exaggerate, and the historical evidence on Tibet is contradictory. One can make a good case that Tibet has been a part of China since 1720. One can also make a good case that Tibet became independent around 1911. The evidence is simply mixed.
A deal to resolve the Tibet question is still attainable. The Dalai Lama would have to put aside claims to vast areas outside the present Tibet Autonomous Region and accept much less political autonomy than he wants.
China would have to ease religious controls and allow the Dalai Lama to return as a spiritual leader. Most important, Beijing would have to end Han Chinese migration to all Tibetan areas to preserve their Tibetan character.
The upshot would be a Tibet under China's thumb, but with greater religious freedom - and with real hope of remaining authentically Tibetan through this century. And China would improve its international image and avoid the risk of Tibetan terrorism.
US President George W. Bush would do far more for the Tibetan people if, instead of just being photographed with the Dalai Lama, he assigned a top-notch diplomat like Mr Christopher Hill to explore such a compromise.
But time is running out, for at this rate, Shangri-La may well become a breeding ground for terrorists.
NEW YORK TIMES
THE TIBET ISSUE
Dissent threatens Shangri-La
By Nicholas D. Kristof
XIAHE (CHINA) - A TIBETAN monk, recently out of jail and still in pain from beatings by the police, said he reveres the Dalai Lama, but also regards him as a political failure.
'We think the Dalai Lama has been too peaceful,' he said. 'There is a big discussion now about whether we should turn to violence.'
Another monk at Labrang Monastery here in Xiahe, on the Tibetan plateau, put it this way: 'For 50 years, the Dalai Lama said to use peaceful means to solve the problems, and that achieved nothing. China just criticises him. After he is gone, there definitely will be violent resistance.'
This impatience seems widespread among young Tibetans, and the rioting and protests across ethnic Tibetan areas of China in the past few months may be a turning point. Unless the Tibet question is resolved, we may see a Tibetan equivalent of the Irish Republican Army or Hamas.
A crackdown is under way in greater Tibet, as I found when I slipped into the area in the back of a car with local licence plates.
China's heavy hand is adding to the antagonism: The authorities are confiscating pictures of the Dalai Lama, beating and forcing monks to attend 'patriotic study' classes - up to two hours a day, six days a week - full of propaganda praising the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and denouncing the exiled spiritual leader.
'That just turns us against China more than ever,' one monk said.
The gulf between Tibetans and the Han Chinese ethnic majority has never been greater. Television images of Tibetans in Lhasa attacking Chinese civilians - devoid of any context of decades of repression - left many Chinese more hardline than the CCP.
'Most of us think the policy towards Tibetans has been too soft,' said a Han Chinese man in Qinghai province who often travels in Tibetan areas.
'They get all kinds of special preferences, but they are just not as hardworking, and they drink too much.
' And then after we help them so much, they riot against us. So most of us think the policy towards Tibetans should be stricter.'
The recent uprising by Tibetans underscores the utter failure of Beijing's policies in Tibet. But it also reflects the failure of the Dalai Lama and of the United States.
The Dalai Lama has played a waiting game, but as China gains global power - and as more Han Chinese flood into Tibet - that has been a losing strategy. The Dalai Lama has won acclaim internationally, but that only triggers the deep Chinese sensitivity to foreign bullying and has thus antagonised the audience that may count the most: China.
The Dalai Lama missed some opportunities by neglecting outreach by then general secretary Hu Yaobang in 1981, by spurning an invitation to China in 1989 and by announcing the choice of the Panchen Lama in a way that Beijing felt insulting.
When the Dalai Lama and those around him refer to 'genocide' or claim roughly one-quarter of China as Tibet, they also undercut Chinese moderates.
As for the US, it may have made things worse.
Mr Melvyn Goldstein of Case Western Reserve University, whose book The Snow Lion And The Dragon remains the best introduction to Tibet, writes that the US has hurt the interests of Tibetans: Its symbolic gestures have encouraged unrealistic Tibetan dreams of independence, and Washington has neglected the serious diplomatic work - both with China and the Dalai Lama - that might actually improve the lives of Tibetans.
China and the Dalai Lama both exaggerate, and the historical evidence on Tibet is contradictory. One can make a good case that Tibet has been a part of China since 1720. One can also make a good case that Tibet became independent around 1911. The evidence is simply mixed.
A deal to resolve the Tibet question is still attainable. The Dalai Lama would have to put aside claims to vast areas outside the present Tibet Autonomous Region and accept much less political autonomy than he wants.
China would have to ease religious controls and allow the Dalai Lama to return as a spiritual leader. Most important, Beijing would have to end Han Chinese migration to all Tibetan areas to preserve their Tibetan character.
The upshot would be a Tibet under China's thumb, but with greater religious freedom - and with real hope of remaining authentically Tibetan through this century. And China would improve its international image and avoid the risk of Tibetan terrorism.
US President George W. Bush would do far more for the Tibetan people if, instead of just being photographed with the Dalai Lama, he assigned a top-notch diplomat like Mr Christopher Hill to explore such a compromise.
But time is running out, for at this rate, Shangri-La may well become a breeding ground for terrorists.
NEW YORK TIMES
DIVORCE AND ITS IMPACT ON CHILDREN
ST May 20, 2008
DIVORCE AND ITS IMPACT ON CHILDREN
Giving voice to the child's needs
By Chong Chee Kin, Crime Reporter
WHO speaks for the child?
Not his parents, if they are in the midst of a divorce.
Instead, 'the child is used by the parents as a bargaining chip to settle other issues', Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong noted earlier this month.
But from the end of next month, children caught between divorcing parents will get a voice. Under the Child scheme, a counsellor will represent the child, so to speak, during court proceedings.
The counsellor's reports to the court will specify the parents' plans for the child, how feasible these plans are and what the child wants. The counsellor's role is now decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on factors such as when parents file conflicting affidavits, each claiming that the child wishes to be with him or her.
Lawyers say the courts are mindful not to involve a child in legal proceedings. Children, for instance, are not asked to testify against their parents. However, if certain points raised by one parent are not challenged by the other, the true wishes of the child may not be known.
For instance, a father may claim his 10-year-old son has written about how much he wants to live with his dad. With the new system, a counsellor can ascertain the boy's real wishes by interviewing him. This step would lend substance to the Family Courts' paradigm shift - away from the current adversarial system to focus instead on the needs of children.
Getting a divorce in Singapore is a two-stage process.
The courts demand evidence that one party is responsible for the marriage breaking down - for example, due to adultery, cruelty or unreasonable behaviour - before granting a divorce. Often, warring couples point fingers at each other, worsening their mutual hostility.
Another reason for divorce can be separation. A couple can be divorced if both parties agree to live separately for three years. It would take four years if one spouse does not agree.
About three to six months after a divorce is granted, a different judge may be appointed to hear ancillary matters, such as the amount of maintenance to be paid, how to split the couple's assets and arrangements for the child.
Here, the accusations which surface at the first stage may be repeated to bolster claims that one or the other spouse is a bad parent and less deserving to gain custody
The children become 'a commodity in the barter trade that goes on in the court', said Ms Ellen Lee, Member of Parliament (Sembawang GRC) and a family lawyer.
For example, a husband might fight for custody if only to force the wife to reduce her maintenance claim or waive it. Also, the husband might threaten to fight for custody to get the wife to give up her claim on the matrimonial flat.
Some of these claims may arise in the first stage of divorce proceedings and re-surface later.
Mr Patrick Tan, managing partner of Patrick Tan & Associates, said: 'Sometimes, when the accusations are relevant, they will re-surface for custody or maintenance issues. For example, the wife may claim the husband is cruel and abuses the child. But generally, the courts try not to involve the child in such matters.'
Ms Foo Siew Fong, who heads matrimonial practice at Harry Elias Partnership and is president of the Singapore Association of Women's Lawyers, said acrimony will be present as long as couples are unreasonable.
The Family Courts have a wide range of programmes, from counselling to workshops on what is best for children. But there is only so much they can do.
'The courts can facilitate the proceedings and make the process as painless as possible for the families. But they cannot force (couples) from not having their say in court,' said Ms Foo.
While full details of how the new tack would work are not yet known, lawyers say the impact of the changes will be felt most at stage two of divorce proceedings.
A family court judge, assisted by a judicial officer and a counsellor who must be present, will preside over, say, custody battles.
The issue of who is to blame may no longer be resurrected, or at most be kept to the minimum. At this stage, the focus will be on the care and future of the child.
This would be helped by the ban on the multiple affidavits that warring couples file. Instead, the judge will direct couples to file affidavits relevant to parenting issues.
Family lawyer Yap Teong Liang, who chairs the Law Society's Family Law Practice Committee, said: 'Instead of fighting the case through affidavits, as they do now, the couple and their lawyers will need to focus on what they think is best for their children, like their emotional needs, education and development.'
Affidavits can cause intense acrimony. When one party points the finger at the other, the other is compelled to rebut and fight the claim.
The affidavits - 'womb to tomb' in their coverage, as the Chief Justice noted - at times detail minute events in the past to show how bad the other parent is. Often, the allegations are irrelevant.
Mr Yap said: 'In cases where one parent claims the other is negligent because she forgets to feed the child, the allegation is not relevant if the child is a teenager.'
Ms Lee said couples are compelled to rebut the allegations under the adversarial system: 'Sometimes, they would ask the children, 'Do you remember mummy doing this or that to you?'. Most of the time, the children do not even remember, but because the statements come from their parents, they feel that the parents must be right.'
The divorce rate is rising - from 5,733 in 2005 to 5,937 last year. So, too, the number of divorces involving children - 2,845 cases last year, up from 2,673 in 2005.
We do not know if the divorce rate will fall. But at the very least, this new move by the Family Courts may lessen the trauma for children caught in the middle.
Couples may break up. But there is no reason why their children should be broken in the process.
cheekin@sph.com.sg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARENTAL PRESSURE
'Sometimes, they would ask the children, 'Do you remember mummy doing this or that to you?'. Most of the time, the children do not even remember, but because the statements come from their parents, they feel that the parents must be right.'
MS ELLEN LEE, Member of Parliament and family lawyer
DIVORCE AND ITS IMPACT ON CHILDREN
Giving voice to the child's needs
By Chong Chee Kin, Crime Reporter
WHO speaks for the child?
Not his parents, if they are in the midst of a divorce.
Instead, 'the child is used by the parents as a bargaining chip to settle other issues', Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong noted earlier this month.
But from the end of next month, children caught between divorcing parents will get a voice. Under the Child scheme, a counsellor will represent the child, so to speak, during court proceedings.
The counsellor's reports to the court will specify the parents' plans for the child, how feasible these plans are and what the child wants. The counsellor's role is now decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on factors such as when parents file conflicting affidavits, each claiming that the child wishes to be with him or her.
Lawyers say the courts are mindful not to involve a child in legal proceedings. Children, for instance, are not asked to testify against their parents. However, if certain points raised by one parent are not challenged by the other, the true wishes of the child may not be known.
For instance, a father may claim his 10-year-old son has written about how much he wants to live with his dad. With the new system, a counsellor can ascertain the boy's real wishes by interviewing him. This step would lend substance to the Family Courts' paradigm shift - away from the current adversarial system to focus instead on the needs of children.
Getting a divorce in Singapore is a two-stage process.
The courts demand evidence that one party is responsible for the marriage breaking down - for example, due to adultery, cruelty or unreasonable behaviour - before granting a divorce. Often, warring couples point fingers at each other, worsening their mutual hostility.
Another reason for divorce can be separation. A couple can be divorced if both parties agree to live separately for three years. It would take four years if one spouse does not agree.
About three to six months after a divorce is granted, a different judge may be appointed to hear ancillary matters, such as the amount of maintenance to be paid, how to split the couple's assets and arrangements for the child.
Here, the accusations which surface at the first stage may be repeated to bolster claims that one or the other spouse is a bad parent and less deserving to gain custody
The children become 'a commodity in the barter trade that goes on in the court', said Ms Ellen Lee, Member of Parliament (Sembawang GRC) and a family lawyer.
For example, a husband might fight for custody if only to force the wife to reduce her maintenance claim or waive it. Also, the husband might threaten to fight for custody to get the wife to give up her claim on the matrimonial flat.
Some of these claims may arise in the first stage of divorce proceedings and re-surface later.
Mr Patrick Tan, managing partner of Patrick Tan & Associates, said: 'Sometimes, when the accusations are relevant, they will re-surface for custody or maintenance issues. For example, the wife may claim the husband is cruel and abuses the child. But generally, the courts try not to involve the child in such matters.'
Ms Foo Siew Fong, who heads matrimonial practice at Harry Elias Partnership and is president of the Singapore Association of Women's Lawyers, said acrimony will be present as long as couples are unreasonable.
The Family Courts have a wide range of programmes, from counselling to workshops on what is best for children. But there is only so much they can do.
'The courts can facilitate the proceedings and make the process as painless as possible for the families. But they cannot force (couples) from not having their say in court,' said Ms Foo.
While full details of how the new tack would work are not yet known, lawyers say the impact of the changes will be felt most at stage two of divorce proceedings.
A family court judge, assisted by a judicial officer and a counsellor who must be present, will preside over, say, custody battles.
The issue of who is to blame may no longer be resurrected, or at most be kept to the minimum. At this stage, the focus will be on the care and future of the child.
This would be helped by the ban on the multiple affidavits that warring couples file. Instead, the judge will direct couples to file affidavits relevant to parenting issues.
Family lawyer Yap Teong Liang, who chairs the Law Society's Family Law Practice Committee, said: 'Instead of fighting the case through affidavits, as they do now, the couple and their lawyers will need to focus on what they think is best for their children, like their emotional needs, education and development.'
Affidavits can cause intense acrimony. When one party points the finger at the other, the other is compelled to rebut and fight the claim.
The affidavits - 'womb to tomb' in their coverage, as the Chief Justice noted - at times detail minute events in the past to show how bad the other parent is. Often, the allegations are irrelevant.
Mr Yap said: 'In cases where one parent claims the other is negligent because she forgets to feed the child, the allegation is not relevant if the child is a teenager.'
Ms Lee said couples are compelled to rebut the allegations under the adversarial system: 'Sometimes, they would ask the children, 'Do you remember mummy doing this or that to you?'. Most of the time, the children do not even remember, but because the statements come from their parents, they feel that the parents must be right.'
The divorce rate is rising - from 5,733 in 2005 to 5,937 last year. So, too, the number of divorces involving children - 2,845 cases last year, up from 2,673 in 2005.
We do not know if the divorce rate will fall. But at the very least, this new move by the Family Courts may lessen the trauma for children caught in the middle.
Couples may break up. But there is no reason why their children should be broken in the process.
cheekin@sph.com.sg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARENTAL PRESSURE
'Sometimes, they would ask the children, 'Do you remember mummy doing this or that to you?'. Most of the time, the children do not even remember, but because the statements come from their parents, they feel that the parents must be right.'
MS ELLEN LEE, Member of Parliament and family lawyer
Pedra Branca - MFA Website
http://www.mfa.gov.sg/pedraBranca/
Background
What is Pedra Branca?
Pedra Branca is an island that sits at the eastern entrance of the Straits of Singapore. It lies about 24 nautical miles to the east of Singapore.
Its location has long been of strategic importance to us as it commands the entire eastern approach to the Straits of Singapore, through which almost 900 ships pass daily.
The oldest feature on the island is Horsburgh Lighthouse, which was built on the island by the British between 1847 and 1851.
What is Singapore’s case with regard to Pedra Branca?
It is Singapore’s case that Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore because the British colonial government took possession of the island over 160 years ago to build Horsburgh Lighthouse and other structures on it. At that time, Pedra Branca was uninhabited and it belonged to no one.
Since then, Singapore has continuously and openly conducted acts of a sovereign nature over the entire island and its surrounding waters. In contrast, Malaysia did nothing and did not protest against any of the actions of Singapore.
In 1953, Johor stated in official correspondence with Singapore that it did not claim ownership over Pedra Branca. Malaysia also published a series of official maps from 1962 to 1975 depicting Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore.
What are Middle Rocks and South Ledge?
Middle Rocks and South Ledge are two maritime features to the south of Pedra Branca. Middle Rocks consists of two clusters of rocks situated 0.6 nautical miles south of Pedra Branca. South Ledge is a low-tide elevation (in other words, it is submerged at high tide) further south, 2.1 nautical miles, of Pedra Branca.
It is Singapore’s case that sovereignty over Middle Rocks and South Ledge belongs to the country that has sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
HISTORY OF THE DISPUTE
How did the dispute arise?
The dispute arose in 1979 when Malaysia published a map which claimed the island as hers. In response, Singapore lodged a formal protest with Malaysia, in early 1980.
Why did Singapore and Malaysia decide to put the dispute before the ICJ?
Singapore and Malaysia agree that bringing this matter before the ICJ will remove an irritant from the bilateral relations between the two countries.
Why did this process take so long?
It took slightly more than 20 years, from the time the dispute arose in 1979, for it to be finally brought before the ICJ. This suggestion was first made by Singapore in 1989. Malaysia accepted this proposal in 1994. The two countries agreed on the text of a Special Agreement (a formal agreement that was needed for the submission of this dispute to the ICJ) in 1998. Finally, the Special Agreement was signed on 6th February 2003 by the Foreign Ministers of both countries, and formally notified to the ICJ on 24 July 2003.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISPUTE
What have Singapore and Malaysia requested the ICJ to decide in this dispute?
Singapore and Malaysia have requested the ICJ to determine who has sovereignty over (a) Pedra Branca; (b) Middle Rocks; (c) South Ledge.
What happened after Singapore and Malaysia submitted the Special Agreement to the ICJ in July 2003?
In accordance with the terms of the Special Agreement, the ICJ scheduled three rounds of written pleadings, which were to be exchanged simultaneously. These were duly submitted on 25 March 2004, 25 January 2005 and 25 November 2005.
In May 2006, the ICJ decided that no further written pleadings were required, thus closing the written proceedings phase of the case.
The case then moved to the oral proceedings phase. Both Singapore and Malaysia made oral arguments before the ICJ from 6-23 November 2007. These hearings were open to the public and were held at the ICJ's Seat at the Peace Palace at The Hague (Netherlands).
Transcripts of the speeches are available on the ICJ's website.
How can I obtain more information on the ICJ?
For more information, please see: http://www.icj-cij.org/.
Background
What is Pedra Branca?
Pedra Branca is an island that sits at the eastern entrance of the Straits of Singapore. It lies about 24 nautical miles to the east of Singapore.
Its location has long been of strategic importance to us as it commands the entire eastern approach to the Straits of Singapore, through which almost 900 ships pass daily.
The oldest feature on the island is Horsburgh Lighthouse, which was built on the island by the British between 1847 and 1851.
What is Singapore’s case with regard to Pedra Branca?
It is Singapore’s case that Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore because the British colonial government took possession of the island over 160 years ago to build Horsburgh Lighthouse and other structures on it. At that time, Pedra Branca was uninhabited and it belonged to no one.
Since then, Singapore has continuously and openly conducted acts of a sovereign nature over the entire island and its surrounding waters. In contrast, Malaysia did nothing and did not protest against any of the actions of Singapore.
In 1953, Johor stated in official correspondence with Singapore that it did not claim ownership over Pedra Branca. Malaysia also published a series of official maps from 1962 to 1975 depicting Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore.
What are Middle Rocks and South Ledge?
Middle Rocks and South Ledge are two maritime features to the south of Pedra Branca. Middle Rocks consists of two clusters of rocks situated 0.6 nautical miles south of Pedra Branca. South Ledge is a low-tide elevation (in other words, it is submerged at high tide) further south, 2.1 nautical miles, of Pedra Branca.
It is Singapore’s case that sovereignty over Middle Rocks and South Ledge belongs to the country that has sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
HISTORY OF THE DISPUTE
How did the dispute arise?
The dispute arose in 1979 when Malaysia published a map which claimed the island as hers. In response, Singapore lodged a formal protest with Malaysia, in early 1980.
Why did Singapore and Malaysia decide to put the dispute before the ICJ?
Singapore and Malaysia agree that bringing this matter before the ICJ will remove an irritant from the bilateral relations between the two countries.
Why did this process take so long?
It took slightly more than 20 years, from the time the dispute arose in 1979, for it to be finally brought before the ICJ. This suggestion was first made by Singapore in 1989. Malaysia accepted this proposal in 1994. The two countries agreed on the text of a Special Agreement (a formal agreement that was needed for the submission of this dispute to the ICJ) in 1998. Finally, the Special Agreement was signed on 6th February 2003 by the Foreign Ministers of both countries, and formally notified to the ICJ on 24 July 2003.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISPUTE
What have Singapore and Malaysia requested the ICJ to decide in this dispute?
Singapore and Malaysia have requested the ICJ to determine who has sovereignty over (a) Pedra Branca; (b) Middle Rocks; (c) South Ledge.
What happened after Singapore and Malaysia submitted the Special Agreement to the ICJ in July 2003?
In accordance with the terms of the Special Agreement, the ICJ scheduled three rounds of written pleadings, which were to be exchanged simultaneously. These were duly submitted on 25 March 2004, 25 January 2005 and 25 November 2005.
In May 2006, the ICJ decided that no further written pleadings were required, thus closing the written proceedings phase of the case.
The case then moved to the oral proceedings phase. Both Singapore and Malaysia made oral arguments before the ICJ from 6-23 November 2007. These hearings were open to the public and were held at the ICJ's Seat at the Peace Palace at The Hague (Netherlands).
Transcripts of the speeches are available on the ICJ's website.
How can I obtain more information on the ICJ?
For more information, please see: http://www.icj-cij.org/.
Pedra Branca Case
ST May 22, 2008
Ruling for Singapore
SINGAPORE claims sovereignty over Pedra Branca on the basis that the British took lawful possession of the island between 1847 and 1851, when they built Horsburgh Lighthouse there.
Before that, the island was terra nullius, that is, it belonged to no one, Singapore had argued before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Netherlands last November.
Singapore inherited the title to the island from the British colonial government.
It maintained that title through an open, continuous and effective display of state authority over the island from the 1850s up to the present, it said.
Those state activities, known in international law as effectivites, went well beyond the operation of Horsburgh Lighthouse, and included naval patrols in the waters around Pedra Branca and the control of access to the island.
If the ICJ judges agree, it could result in one of two possible outcomes.
SINGAPORE: PEDRA BRANCA, MIDDLE ROCKS AND SOUTH LEDGE
MALAYSIA: NOTHING
THE court could award sovereignty over Pedra Branca, the Middle Rocks and South Ledge to Singapore.
That would be 'optimum' for Singapore, Ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh said.
Such an outcome would maintain the status quo. Singapore would then have to decide how to delimit its territorial sea and exclusive economic zone around Pedra Branca.
'If these zones overlap with those of our two neighbours (Malaysia and Indonesia), then we will have to sit down with them to negotiate an agreed delimitation...and we may have to talk to Malaysia about fishing rights in Pedra Branca's waters,' he added.
------------------------------
SINGAPORE: PEDRA BRANCA
MALAYSIA: MIDDLE ROCKS AND SOUTH LEDGE
THE court could award sovereignty over Pedra Branca to Singapore and sovereignty over the Middle Rocks and South Ledge to Malaysia.
Middle Rocks and South Ledge are two maritime features that lie within three nautical miles of Pedra Branca.
Ambassador Koh said he would regard such a split decision as still 'a good outcome because the lighthouse is on Pedra Branca and of the three maritime features, the largest and the most significant is Pedra Branca'.
On the economic importance of Pedra Branca to Singapore, Ambassador Koh noted that the island is strategically located at the eastern entrance of the Strait of Singapore.
The Strait is a key channel for international shipping and some 900 ships pass through it each day.
'Since our port is so important to our livelihood, freedom and safety of navigation are critical and part of our core national interest,' he said
May 26, 2008
PEDRA BRANCA JUDGMENT
For all our sakes, it's time to move on
NOW the International Court of Justice has made its ruling on Pedra Branca, I am sure there will be no shortage of 'experts', 'analysts', 'patriots' and so on, who will take every opportunity to voice their opinion in public.
I would like to make a plea to the media, to restrain from prolonging or highlighting this topic for public discussion.
It will not help to foster goodwill between our two countries; it will only breed more disagreement and discontent.
Both governments have, in their wisdom, accepted the judgment of an independent court. So must the people.
We should encourage people to leave behind the burden of political baggage, and move on to a better future.
For the good of both countries, the media should encourage people to look forward to a better future and not look back at the past.
For the sake of both Singapore and Malaysia, it is better to find ways to build a better future, rather than find fault on what occurred in the past.
Dr George Wong
------------------------------------
SM: Accepting outcome shows maturing of ties
Disappointed that S'pore did not get Middle Rocks but he calls ruling 'fair and best'
By zakir Hussain
THE world court's decision on Pedra Branca has untied a 'tricky knot' in bilateral ties between Singapore and Malaysia, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said yesterday.
Both sides can now 'look forward instead of being bogged down by this issue', he told reporters ahead of a charity golf tournament to raise funds for the needy in Yuhua constituency.
He also lauded the calm reactions in both countries to the decision, saying that this showed 'a maturing of our relationship'.
'This augurs well for the future. We can now look at things in a more positive way and handle any further disputes in the same matured manner,' he added.
Last Friday, the International Court of Justice in The Hague awarded Pedra Branca to Singapore, ending a 28-year tussle for sovereignty over the island.
The ICJ also awarded two smaller outcrops near it, Middle Rocks, to Malaysia. But it did not make a definitive ruling on South Ledge, a rock formation visible only at low tide.
That rock belongs to whoever owns the territorial waters it sits in, the ICJ said, adding that it was not tasked with defining those boundaries.
Even before the ruling, both sides said they would accept the court's outcome - something Mr Goh described as 'positive'.
Since the ruling, some Malaysian leaders have also described the decision as a 'win-win' situation.
It was in 1994 that then-prime minister Goh and his then-Malaysian counterpart Mahathir Mohamad decided to refer the issue of overlapping claims to Pedra Branca to the ICJ.
Asked if the ruling brought closure for him, Mr Goh said it did: 'It has been a long drawn out saga...And I look at the outcome in a positive way.'
As to whether he was worried about sentiments in Johor, he said: 'We will leave it to the Malaysians to manage.'
'So far they've managed it very well. They of course are unhappy, and I thought, nevertheless, they reacted in a rather calm manner,' he said.
'Personally, I'm disappointed that we did not get the award for Middle Rocks,' he added.
'I thought it would either be all or nothing, a binary solution, because the three rocky outcrops were quite close to one another.'
'But nevertheless, there is a hint of Solomon in the decision,' he said, referring to the Biblical king known for his wisdom.
'And I think perhaps it's the fair and best outcome for both sides.'
As for South Ledge, both parties have to sit down and decide how to draw boundaries according to international law to determine ownership.
But Mr Goh is optimistic about the eventual outcome. 'I do believe that given the goodwill assured by both sides in bringing this dispute to the ICJ, the matter will be settled quite amicably,' he said.
zakirh@sph.com.sg
--------------------------
What is Pedra Branca?
Pedra Branca is an island that sits at the eastern entrance of the Straits of Singapore. It lies about 24 nautical miles to the east of Singapore.
Its location has long been of strategic importance to us as it commands the entire eastern approach to the Straits of Singapore, through which almost 900 ships pass daily.
The oldest feature on the island is Horsburgh Lighthouse, which was built on the island by the British between 1847 and 1851.
What is Singapore’s case with regard to Pedra Branca?
It is Singapore’s case that Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore because the British colonial government took possession of the island over 160 years ago to build Horsburgh Lighthouse and other structures on it. At that time, Pedra Branca was uninhabited and it belonged to no one.
Since then, Singapore has continuously and openly conducted acts of a sovereign nature over the entire island and its surrounding waters. In contrast, Malaysia did nothing and did not protest against any of the actions of Singapore.
In 1953, Johor stated in official correspondence with Singapore that it did not claim ownership over Pedra Branca. Malaysia also published a series of official maps from 1962 to 1975 depicting Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore.
What are Middle Rocks and South Ledge?
Middle Rocks and South Ledge are two maritime features to the south of Pedra Branca. Middle Rocks consists of two clusters of rocks situated 0.6 nautical miles south of Pedra Branca. South Ledge is a low-tide elevation (in other words, it is submerged at high tide) further south, 2.1 nautical miles, of Pedra Branca.
It is Singapore’s case that sovereignty over Middle Rocks and South Ledge belongs to the country that has sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)