Rape as a weapon of war: it was officially outlawed by the UN in June 2008 but it is still a daily practice in East Congo says Rwandan genocide survivor Leah Chishugi.

In the BBC discussion program Hardtalk, Leah Chishugi told horrifying stories of rape being used as a weapon of war in East Congo.

Herself a survivor of the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, Leah Chishugi went to East Congo and recorded the atrocities being committed against Congolese women.

She talked to and documented many victims of rape including a 90 year-old women who could hardly walk and a three-year-old girl who had also been conceived by means of rape.

As she told The Guardian “I am not a politician but I want to let the world know what is going on. I believe that Kagame, [Joseph] Kabila [the Congolese president] and [Laurent] Nkunda [the Tutsi rebel leader] all know exactly what is going on.”

And very disturbing, too, was her conclusion that the UN was not doing anything to protect these women. In the villages and towns Leah Chishugi visited, she saw the odd UN car, but no real practical effort on the ground.

UN action
So what has the UN been doing against this violence against women?

In June 2008 the UN Security Council voted unanimously for a resolution classifying rape as a weapon of war, as the BBC reports.

Even though UN Resolution 1820 is an unprecedented step, it is hard to see how this political step translates into action on the ground.

When reportedly 70% of women in many villages in Congo have been raped, words on paper mean very little to both the victims of rape and their families and communities.

Terror attacks, threat of nuclear war, severe weather conditions due to global warming, and economic crises all contribute to uncertainty.

In a culture of fear, society is crippled by these anxieties and is increasingly frightened for its future.

Politics has sometimes embellished on the ‘fear factor’ in order to justify certain policy choices.

The decision to invade Iraq in 2003, for example, illustrates this point.

On other occasions leaders might have downplayed the seriousness of certain fears to justify other policy choices.

For a long time President G.W. Bush dismissed any evidence linking human actions to global warming.

History Repeats Itself
‘Culture of fear’ is not a new phenomenon.

During the Cold War, the world was rife with (very justified) fears of nuclear war. In the post-9/11 era fears run high once again.

And now a looming global economic depression is fear factor number one.

Today, in The Sunday Times we could read commentaries by six economics experts on the global economic crisis.

Summarising what the experts said: the outlook for the world economy is very bleak, Great Depression bleak.

My favourite comment was the one by Professor of European Political Economy at the LSE Willem Buiter: “The recession in the US, the UK, the eurozone, Japan and the rest of Europe is, with probability verging on certainty, going to be so deep and so prolonged that the zero lower bound (on interest rates) will be reached even by the most anal-retentive gradualist central bank before the middle of 2009.”

How helpful are these comments?

When 2008 Nobel Prize Winner for economics Paul Krugman comments on the crisis by saying “I’m getting scared,” what hope is there for the man on the street to have any confidence in the economy?

It is ironic that these same economic experts and politicians are desperately urging consumers to spend their way out of the economic crisis.

Perhaps it is all just wishful thinking (and a little naïve), but keeping the ‘fear factor’ to a minimum right now might just be the ticket to get us through recession.

If anything, not living in fear will keep society just a little happier in gloomy times.

New outrage is voiced over how Zimbabwe’s President Mugabe is ruling the country amidst the severest cholera outbreak Zimbabwe has known in ten years.

According to the UN on 5 December, there have been 589 reported deaths so far and the number of supposed cases of cholera has climbed to 14,000.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown now joins ranks with Condoleezza Rice and Archbishop Tutu in calling upon the international community to act.

The BBC reports the Prime Minister stating that this is now an international crisis where there “is no state capable or willing of protecting its people”.

In the words of the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon: “The UN and its relief partners must respond quickly to address the needs of Zimbabweans and prevent the cholera epidemic from spreading.”

After Humanitarian Aid
Naturally focus is given to the immediate humanitarian crisis at hand but there is, as of yet, no consensus on further action on President Mugabe’s rule of Zimbabwe.

Reuters reports on the European Union’s intentions to impose more sanctions on the government of Zimbabwe.

But as past sanctions have done little to remedy the political and economic state of affairs in Zimbabwe, imposing new sanctions might only make the situation worse.

Perhaps it is now time to finally pull out, dust off and give some real teeth to the 2005 notion of ‘The Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P).

As it states on the R2P website: “In 2005, world leaders agreed, for the first time, that states have a primary responsibility to protect their own populations and that the international community has a responsibility to act when these governments fail to protect the most vulnerable among us.”

The international community is acting by giving much-needed humanitarian aid to the people of Zimbabwe.

But in the true spirit of the R2P statement; humanitarian aid is just not enough.

Consumers in Britain have received an early Christmas present this Monday in the form of a 13-month cut in the Value Added Tax (VAT) on products.

The much-debated VAT cut from 17.5% to 15% came into effect on the 1st of December and will last until the 31st of December 2009.

Father Christmas, a.k.a. Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling announced his plans to boost consumer spending in his 2008 Pre-budget Report on 24 November.

But the VAT cut might prove to be a rather expensive present and one which Britain can ill afford in these times of recession.

The Tory party have criticised Labour’s spending spree harshly, pointing to an already high budget deficit.

To the BBC, shadow chancellor George Osborne (Conservative) said that Mr. Darling was “bringing this country to the verge of bankruptcy” by doubling the national debt to £118bn next year.

Desperate Times
But Mr. Darling was adamant that desperate times call for desperate measures: “In these exceptional economic circumstances, I want to take fair and responsible steps to protect and support businesses and people now.”

And it is not only the opposition parties that are critical of the VAT cut as many consumers are wondering whether a 2.5% decrease in prices will make all that much difference to their wallets.

And will it really make shoppers want to spend more, giving that all-important impulse to the economy we hear so much about?

According to the BBC, the 2.5% decrease will mean that a Mars bar is 1p cheaper, you can buy a JVC LCD television for £12.77 less than before and a pair of Levi’s jeans will be down £1.49.

Even if this doesn’t sound like much in the short-run, I suppose it will add up to a substantial amount over the full 13 months. So far so good.

Unwanted side-effects
There are, however, some negative side-effects to this VAT cut as it also extends to products that, in my opinion, should not be reduced in price.

I am talking of the Sainsbury’s (durable) shopping bag.

Before the VAT cut the shopping bag cost shoppers 10p, a measure taken to discourage shoppers to use the plastic shopping bags in the first place.

To my dismay, whilst unloading my shopping basket, I saw that the shopping bag price had been reduced to 9p. Now where is the point in that?

Given that the Pre-budget report devotes a whole chapter on ‘Delivering on environmental goals’, I believe Mr. Darling might have overlooked this small but obvious discrepancy in his financial plans.

So you won’t hear me saying ‘Thank you Darling’ just yet.

The true Father Christmas will make Sainsbury’s re-think its plastic bag policy (and stop giving out free flimsy plastic bags in the first place).

Election board in Japan

Japan’s economy, hardly recovered from its crisis in the 1990s, has also not been immune to the world economic crisis and is now officially in recession.

And the future looks bleak for the country who is also struggling with an aging population and a fickle health care system.

But still being the world’s second largest economy at the moment, can Japan re-invent itself as political leader in Asia?

Not if the Prime Minister Aso has anything to do with it.

The Times reported today on the current Japanese Prime Minister, who has gained notoriety on account of his many political faux pas.

Even his own party, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) is criticising the Prime Minister for statements he made such as calling Japanese elderly “hobbling malingerers”.

Unstable government
Ever since the charismatic Junichiro Koizumi (LDP), who served three terms as Prime Minister for Japan (2000-2006), there has not been a Prime Minister who could hold office for more than one year.

Shinzo Abe and Yasuo Fukuoda just barely stayed in office for a year, and Prime Minister Aso’s reputation doesn’t bode well for his political future.

Scandals over lost pensions, government officials making embarrassing statements, unpopular health care reforms and a poor economy, have caused much discomfort for the ruling LDP party.

Consequently, the party, which has ruled Japan since its establishment in 1955, has seen a recent sharp decline in popularity.

The second largest economy of the world has always sought ways to translate its economic power into political power.

But to little avail.

And, so long as the Japanese government cannot gain respect from its own people, how can it gain any respect from the rest of the world?

Instead of there being a run on the banks in hard economic times, the United States is currently experiencing a run on guns.

According to a report on the BBC Radio4 Today program, many Americans are stocking up on guns in fear of stricter rules on firearms once President-elect Obama comes into office.

“In the first week of November 2008, the National Instant Criminal Background Checks show that 374,510 people bought a handgun or long gun, compared with 251,804 in the same week in 2007,” states Jodi Andes of the website Dispatch Politics.

It is a well-known fact that every time a Democratic President is elected to office it sparks a tremendous surge in demand for firearms.

Americans are buying rifles, handguns and semi-automatics because they are afraid that now a Democratic President is back in the White House, ‘gun control’ will once more be an issue on the agenda.

However, gun control has at best been a side-issue in the 2008 election campaign, so the President-elect’s exact views on firearms remain unclear.

Obama on Firearms
Washington Post columnist Robert D. Novak calls it ‘Obama’s Second Amendment Dance’, pointing towards inconsistency in President-elect Obama’s policy toward firearms.

Meanwhile the National Rifle Association (NRA) is convinced that the President-elect has a few things up his sleeve (certainly not guns) when it comes to gun control, warning gun owners of new restrictive policy.

But it is not all bad news.

“Barack Obama said he would improve the economy. Turns out he already has, at least in one retail niche: gun sales,” says The Guardian.

Courtesy of European Commission

Every now and again, an all too familiar grumbling is heard from many a British politician and from even more British journalists on the ‘big bad’ European Union (EU).

Sure enough, today’s Daily Mail prints two articles on the financial costs of the EU, citing a critical report by the Eurosceptic think tank ‘Bruges Group’ and the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

In one of the articles by political reporter Ian Drury, the UKIP Member of European Parliament (MEP), Gerard Batten, said: “To get Britain out of recession, we must get Britain out of the EU.”

Although such statements should really warrant no response, they do point to a broad feeling of ‘Euroscepticism’ that has plagued Britain ever since it became a member.

Back in the day, Britain must have seen something positive to becoming a member of (what was then called) the European Economic Community (EEC) as both Conservative and Labour governments in 1961 and 1967 applied for membership.

Under former Prime Minster for the Conservatives Edward Heath, Britain eventually did join the EEC in 1973.

Costs of EU Membership
Short-sightedness is no excuse for being blind to the benefits Britain has enjoyed in terms of job creation and business since becoming a member.

Yes, we know the EU costs a lot of money and this has always been an easy target to condemn, on the face of things.

Just some of the costs:

• MEPs who are all too willing to claim expenses (though not too willing to attend actual meetings)
• Moving costs involved in holding Plenary Sessions of European Parliament alternately in Strasbourg and Brussels
• The costs involved in translating EU legislation into the 23 official EU languages
• The EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

But we also know (at least some of us do) that the EU consists of 27 Member States each with a political will of their own, not to mention a stubborn sense of pride.

And Britain is no exception.

I wonder how willing the British would be to give up their right to speak and conduct politics in their own language.

Given their hesitance to give up the Pound Sterling in favour of adopting the Euro, I think this not very likely.

For Britain the EU has always been a case of ‘can’t live with it, can’t live without it’. As for me, Britain’s hypocritical stance on the EU is becoming rather old news.

Performance enhancing drugs are banned from sports but what about performance enhancing sports wear?

Debate on the wearing of body-suit swimwear continues as, according to Craig Lord of the Sunday Times, the US is calling for a ban on the ‘shoulder-to-ankle skin-tight costume’ worn by 90% of medal winners in the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

It seems rules on performance increasing swimwear are yet to catch up with the realities of technological innovation.

In his article, ‘Making Waves’, Lord points that the launch of a pain-removing, body-interacting swimsuit could be closer than we think and Fina (the international governing body) can do little about it.

The debate on using technology in sport is not new and is not confined to the world of the swimming pool.

Before the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano Japan, there was equal discussion on the use of the innovative speed-skate with a built-in hinge mechanism, the so-called ‘Klap skate’.

Speed-skating innovation
Just like in the case of the Nasa-designed Speedo bodysuit in Beijing, long-track speed-skating world records were broken, times were slashed and a new era of speed-skating arose.

Use of so-called ‘speedstrips’ on speed-skaters body suits alleged to reduce air-resistance were also seen as controversial and many skaters complained of the unfair advantage it gave those using them.

In 2002, just before the start of the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, the International Skating Union (ISU) prohibited the wearing of the ‘double Klap skate’ because of its built-in electronic mechanism.

So when does technological advancement stop being called innovation and start being classified in the same category as performance-enhancing drugs?

And, even if it were possible, is the answer an all-out ban on all technological innovation in the world of sports?

In any case, it is naïve to think that a level playing ground in sports can exist because it defeats the purpose of competing in the first place.

However, a fair playing ground with equal access to technology is surely a noble goal that the sport-gods should strive for.

Meanwhile, it is about time we start thinking about a sport ideology where terms like talent and willpower override (access to) technological advances in determining winners and losers.

Pirates off the coast of Somalia are forcing Dutch shipping companies use the route via the Cape of Good Hope to get to the ports of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Dutch broadcaster NOS reports.

This week saw yet another tanker hijacked on the dangerous Somali waters, this time a Saudi-vessel carrying over 300 million litres of crude oil.

On Friday the International Maritime Bureau (IMB) issued a Piracy Alert, warning all ships sailing in the region of southern Somalia and Kenya.

It might be an ‘out of control problem’ according to the IMB but what is the story behind this surge in piracy over the past few months?

As pointed out in BBC Radio 4’s Today program, pirates are seen by many as ‘lovable rogues’ when they actually are ‘violent and greedy criminals’.

This romanticised view of pirates is encouraged by Hollywood images of Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow and the illusion of carefree scoundrels fighting the establishment.

Indeed, in an interview by The Guardian one pirate says: “We consider ourselves heroes running away from poverty.”

Whether you believe the Somali pirates are modern day Robin Hoods or not, they are costing governments and businesses around the world millions in terms of lost revenue and ransom fees.

But the true tragedy of the Somali pirates is the reason that lies behind these acts of piracy. We read in this week’s Economist a catastrophic story of a collapsing Somalia and a lawless east Africa.

Amidst calls from shipping companies and nation-states to the EU and the UN to combat the piracy problem, perhaps it is also time to call upon these institutions to finally address the underlying problems fuelling piracy in the first place.

The outlook for US dominance in world affairs in the 21^st century looks very bleak, a leading American intelligence agency has concluded.

According to the National Intelligence Council (NIC) report, “the whole international system—as constructed following WWII—will be revolutionized. Not only will new players—Brazil, Russia, India and China— have a seat at the international high table, they will bring new stakes and rules of the game.”

This is a very different picture to the one Lord Patten paints in his new book ‘What next? Surviving the Twenty-First Century’.

Speaking to over 400 students from the London School of Economics (LSE) on Wednesday, the Lord referred to today as being ‘the new world’ with America as its prime architect.

Despite the growth of Asian powers and America’s loss of moral authority during the Iraq war, Lord Pattens believes that the United States will remain the only super-power in the world.

“Open up any newspaper in any country. America is still the only country in the world that matters everywhere,” said Lord Patten.

End of leadership?

To my question of whether he gave any merit to views of the end of American leader-status in the world, the Lord brusquely answered “no, not very much.”

Lord Patten downplayed the power of India and China as shapers of the 21^st century, stating: “We must be aware of the problems facing India and China and we shouldn’t assume that this exponential economic growth will last forever, just look at the Japanese example in the 1980s.”

I suppose it is all a matter of identity.

If the world still believes the United States to be the most important player in world affairs despite evidence to the contrary, the United States will remain the most important player in world affairs.

But in the unlikely event of powerful players deciding not to look to the United States for leadership, we might see a very different 21^st century.