Conference Explores Widow Abuse in Cameroon

Originally published April 3, 2006 in The Herald

The Gender Mainstreaming and Networking Organisation (GEMANO) a woman's equality non-governmental organisation, completed a three-day conference on widowhood rights and domestic violence last Friday. The conference was attended by several high ranking officials in a variety of fields, reflecting the multi-faceted nature of the problems facing widows in Cameroon.

Sally Weriwoh, president of the Yaounde-based GEMANO, said that widows in Cameroon are consistently denied their basic human rights when they are forced to endure cruel traditional practices. Examples of widow mistreatment include forced drinking of water used to cleanse the husband's corpse, not being allowed to bathe for the duration of the mourning period, the levirate rights which force the widows into marrying a relative of the husband, loss of property, and forced separation of children. The worst cases can result in death, torture, and permanent psychological trauma.

Gathering to fight this problem was a group of 25 professionals. They included magistrates, lawyers, psychologists, councillors, doctors, members of the gendarmie, police comissioners, social workers, and educationalists. Justice Mbale Goethe of the supreme court opened the conference as a representative of the National Commission for Human Rights and Freedoms.

The primary aim of the conference was to identify the causes of widow abuse and develop a plan of action for combating the problem. The conference members concluded that the abuses were a result of inhuman traditional practices and ignorance of human rights on the part of widows. Most often these practices are enforced by women who have themselves undergone the process of traditional widowhood. Weriwoh said that these practices should stop because they violate human rights, which are enshrined in Cameroonian and international law.

Efforts at correcting the problem are going to be directed at raising awareness among women of their rights and what to do when their rights are violated. According to Weriwoh, women have the right to say no to inhuman practices. They are entitled to mourn their husband however they want and should not be forced into anything by family or community members. Furthermore, they are entitled to the husband's property in a monogamous marriage and cannot be forced to remarry.

Educating women on these rights is the first step in the campaign. GEMANO plans to use all available means of communication including CRTV, primary and secondary school visits, and direct education in all ten provinces. Weriwoh wanted to further emphasise that there are institutions available to help women who feel that their rights are being violated. She listed the ministry of women's empowerment, the police, NGOs like GEMANO, the courts, and the national commission on human rights. She emphasised that women should not suffer because they are protected by the law.

The conference members acknowledged that ending widow abuse will not happen overnight, but they are optimistic that with improved education and awareness women will be empowered to insist on their human rights. It is their hope that in time Cameroon will become a country where every person, widows included, are treated fairly and equally.

Focus on Jordan: Worker Rights, Human Rights, and Trade Relationships

Originally published June 27th, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

Jordan’s 2001 free trade agreement with the United States, hailed as a model combination of worker rights and economic development, has failed to improve labor conditions due to a lack of enforcement. The Center for American Progress hosted a panel of experts today to discuss this issue, focusing on a recently released Solidarity Center report titled “Justice for All: The Struggle for Worker Rights in Jordan.”

Thea Lee, policy director and international economist with the AFL-CIO, represented the Solidarity Center. Mazen al Ma’ayta, general secretary of the General Federation of Jordanian Trade Unions, joined her and provided a direct account of the labor situation in Jordan. Center for American Progress senior fellow Gene Sperling moderated the discussion, and the Center’s president, John D. Podesta, gave introductory remarks.

In his introduction, Podesta asserted that trade is an economic imperative. It is an indelible part of the global economy, and the terms of trade determine living standards around the world. The U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement (JFTA) was intended as a model for, in the words of Podesta, “ensuring that free trade is not an economic opportunity for some and an empty promise for many.”

JFTA is the first trade agreement to include enforceable provisions for workers’ rights, a groundbreaking step towards non-exploitative economic development. Yet working conditions have not improved in Jordan because those provisions have not been enforced. “The reality,” Sperling said, “is nowhere near the ideals.”

The significant economic development in Jordan has come at a heavy price. According to Ma’ayta, development has meant sweatshop factories with abhorrent conditions, including 100-hour work weeks, forced labor, child workers, and barriers to worker organization. Foreign migrant workers, desperate for jobs, are particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Conditions, according to Sperling, are “almost what you would consider human trafficking.”

According to Ma’ayta, “Workers will not enjoy full protections without being organized.” This must include the migrant worker population, particularly since Jordanians are being pushed out of jobs by foreigners that will work for less pay in worse conditions. Without improvements in organized labor, the benefits of foreign investment will bypass Jordanian workers.

The speakers emphasized that the JFTA is still a work in progress. There is a desire to make the agreement work, said Lee, but “We must hold governments accountable for the promises they made.” In the global scramble for cheaper goods, access to markets, and foreign investment, decent jobs are often neglected. If the JFTA is going to be a successful model for progressive globalization, Podesta said, “In addition to agreement, there must be commitment.”

The United States & Colombia: What comes next?

Originally published July 18, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

Colombia has made great strides in recent years, and the special relationship it has with the United States must be updated to reflect the changing needs of a work still in progress. This was the largely agreed upon consensus of a distinguished panel of experts hosted by The Americas Project at the Center for American Progress today.

The Center was honored to welcome former Colombian president and former ambassador to the United States, Andrés Pastrana, who delivered the keynote address. Pastrana was introduced by John Podesta, president and chief executive officer of the Center for American Progress, and joined on the panel by Rep. Sam Farr (D_CA). Also on the panel were Isaac Lee, editor-in-chief for Page One Media; Nelson Cunningham, managing partner at Kissinger McLarty Associates; and Russell Crandall, professor of Political Science at Davidson College. Dan Restrepo, director of The Americas Project, moderated.

Pastrana broadly outlined the state of U.S.-Colombia relations, focusing on the strong mutual support relative to other South American countries and the progress made since the implementation of Plan Colombia in 2000. Recent free and fair elections, he said, show “the resilience and determination of the Colombian people” in the face of an often violent past. “Plan Colombia has produced many benefits,” Pastrana said, pointing to more professional and effective security forces, economic growth, and successes in combating the drug trade. “U.S. support has been a critical component,” he said, in Colombia’s improvement.

Making a point that was supported by the other panelists, Pastrana said that an important shift in the U.S.-Colombian relationship is needed. Colombia is the third highest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, and in the past that aid has been largely focused on security. This is important, as Pastrana pointed out, because without security, social progress cannot occur. But, he said, “we need to get more investment in the social side.” Pastrana also expressed hope that progress could be made this year on a free trade agreement, so that economic growth will allow Colombia to pay for its own development. “We don’t want aid,” he said, “we want trade.”

That assessment was echoed by Farr, although he was pessimistic about a free trade agreement being finalized this year. Cunningham agreed, pointing out that “we’re not where we thought we would be with a Colombian free trade agreement.” The hope was expressed that, when an agreement does eventually gather momentum, there will be bipartisan support for mutually beneficial trade.

Farr was more optimistic that support exists for a shift in aid. Colombia originally became an issue for Congress because of the war on drugs, he said, but in recent years there has been growing awareness that a more comprehensive approach would be more effective. “Colombia is in this very delicate transition right now,” he said, and successfully navigating that transition means “less support for the military and more support for the domestic agenda.”

Crandall added that, although targeted at the drug trade, Plan Colombia has been successful in improving the state of Colombia generally. The U.S. took risks, he said, in supporting Colombian security forces, and those risks seem to have paid off. He sees evidence that “engaged U.S. involvement assistance can make a difference.” But he also cautioned that, however important U.S. aid is, if Colombians “want to save their own country, they have to do it themselves.”

That will not be an easy task, despite an improved security situation. Lee, referring to the leftist rebel groups — the FARC and the ELN — that have caused so much disruption, said “they are contained, but the war is not over.” Pastrana added that even today “all Colombians are suffering violence.” While supporting the paramilitary demobilization process that is under way, Pastrana emphasized the need for transparency in that process, and was hopeful that national reconciliation could occur through a formal process. With continued support from the United States that adapts to changing needs, Colombia can continue to progress. “The challenges,” said Lee, “are the execution of Plan Colombia and the paramilitary process.”

Mexico's Presidential Election Results: What do they mean for the United States?

Originally published June 7, 2006 for the Center for American Progress

The close and contentious results of Mexico’s recent presidential election should help cast a spotlight on the importance of the United States’ relationship with its southern neighbor. The Americas Project at the Center for American Progress convened a panel of experts to discuss its impact and implications for U.S.-Mexico relations.

Jorge Castañeda, former Foreign Minister of Mexico, gave the keynote address that sparked a lively exchange. Panelists included Arturo Valenzuela, Director of the Center for Latin American Studies in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and James R. Jones, Co-Chairman of ManattJones Global Strategies and former Ambassador to Mexico. Joining them were Joy Olson, Executive Director of the Washington Office on Latin America, and Armando Guzmán, Washington bureau chief for TV Azteca. Dan Restrepo, head of The Americas Project at the Center, moderated the exchange.

Castañeda began by addressing the results of the election. “I don’t think there is any doubt,” he said, “nor should there be any doubt, that [Felipe] Calderón won,” an assessment echoed by the other panelists. He pointed to the already twice recounted votes and the strength of Mexico’s electoral system as reasons for considering the election results final. Valenzuela supported that assessment, calling Mexico’s electoral system “one of the best in the world.”

Castañeda used the controversy surrounding the election, particularly the protests of second-place candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador, to make a case for a fundamental change in Mexico’s political system. The other panelists supported him in his analysis. “The problem,” he said, “is not the size of the mandate. The problem is the nature of the institutions.” He pointed out the inherent tensions in a non-parliamentary system that has three parties, as well as the difficulties of a weak president working with a divisive legislature that has little institutional incentive to cooperate with the executive branch. Castañeda also observed the absence of a run-off system, which would help immensely in building national consensus in the face of such a split election. Most importantly, he emphasized that the outcomes of the official electoral system must be respected because building the rule of law is critical for Mexico’s future.

Overhauling Mexico’s democratic institutions is important, Castañeda said, because without a better governance structure the crucial questions facing the country cannot begin to be answered effectively. Like the others on the panel, he said that poverty is the most pressing issue facing Mexico, but in the current system potential solutions are lost in a swirl of political infighting. “It’s not enough to do it with just good intentions,” Castañeda said. “The country cannot be governed under these circumstances.”

For the short term Castañeda said that, “Calderón’s victory will mean a great deal of continuity with U.S. relations.” For the long term, as the other panelists emphasized, the lessons for the U.S. to take away from the election point to a broader shift in U.S.-Mexican relations.

“The U.S. has vital interests with Mexico,” said Valenzuela, as evidenced by its status as the second largest trade partner and oil supplier. This election was the most recent step in what he called Mexico’s “complex and difficult transition” from a rural economy to an industrial power. Yet despite these forces at work, Valenzuela said, “We don’t think about Mexico strategically.” Rather than a comprehensive framework with Mexican stability and growth as a foundation, the U.S. tends to engage Mexico haphazardly over particular domestic and economic issues.

To that end, the panelists called for U.S. strategic interest in an improved, functional Mexico. Olson pointed out that the election controversy and López Obrador’s strong showing, along with elections in other Latin American countries, illustrate “incredibly divided societies” and the need for “hearing the voices of the people.” Poverty, it was agreed, should be a strategic priority for the U.S. because it is at the root of so many other issues, including immigration, trade, and political stability.

U.S. leadership in regional growth was emphasized by Jones. “Canada and the U.S. have a big obligation,” he said, “to have a serious development fund” that would be tied to needed political reforms. Observing that too many people in Mexico have not seen tangible benefits from free markets and democracy, many of whom voted for López Obrador, he said that “a system of hope has to be built in” if those economic and political institutions are going to succeed.

Political leadership and increased awareness are necessary to remaking U.S.-Mexico relations. Right now, as Guzman observed, “You don’t hear about Mexico at all,” except in regards to immigration issues. As the election reminded us, however, a broader and more comprehensive approach is needed for the U.S. to develop a strong and productive partnership with its neighbor.

Fuel Prices Go Up Tonight

Originally published March 31, 2006 in The Herald

Terrorism and political instability continue to rock world oil markets, resulting in an increase in the prices of refined petroleum products over the month of March. Residents of Cameroon can expect those price increases to be reflected at the pump, as the price of petrol is predicted to increase by an unspecified amount by midnight today.

The fund for the stabilisation of fuel prices released its analysis of the past month's world petroleum market yesterday. Despite a slight decrease in the price of unrefined crude oil, from $61.44 US a barrel to $60.85 US, the price of refined products such as super petrol and diesel fuels increased. Super increased 3% from $544 US per metric ton to $570.86 US, while diesel fuel increased 2% from $548.95 US per metric ton to $560.36 US. An exception was the price of kerosene, which decreased slightly from $617.98 US per metric ton to $611.75 US.

The increase in the price of refined petrol is expected to have the most noticeable effect on Cameroon. Super currently sells for 563 FCFA per litre and experts expect it to hit 575, while gazole sells for 524 FCFA and petrol sells for 356 FCFA. Prices at the pump are expected to increase in April as the government attempts to keep up with world markets.

The global price increases are a result of increases in the demand for refined petroleum outpacing increases in the supply. Several new factors have recently affected the oil market. A terrorist attack in Saudia Arabia decreased the available supply of remined petrol.

In addition, uncertainty about Iran's possible nuclear weapons programme could jeapordise supplies from the country. Iran holds 10% of the world's proven oil reserves. And in the region, militant attacks in Nigeria have reduced petroleum output from that country by 650,000 barrels a day.

Without substantial new oil supplies, prices will continue to rise as Europe, Japan, the United States, and others continue to consume oil at a high rate, and as demand from growing countries like India and China continues to increase. Experts estimate that world oil supplies may reach their peak within 10 or 20 years.