"What are some countries now at war?" the teacher asks. The kids explode into a mass of raised hands; they snap their fingers, pleading to be called on, shouting "Monsieur! Monsieur!" Several get their wish, and the countries in conflict come spilling out and onto the blackboard: "Congo!" Then, "Côte d'Ivoire!" and "Bissau!", Senegal's neighbor to the south, Guinea Bissau.
"Any others?" the teacher asks. One student—eager to be called on but unable to think of another country in conflict—blurts out "France!"
Well, no, France is not at war, so the lesson turns to peace. The teacher asks the children to write sentences on the importance of peace, and how it can be achieved. They read them before the class, and they are as noble as any diplomat's address to the United Nations: "We have to forgive each other and be as one." "We have to stop fighting each other and respect one another."
One of the smallest boys in the class walks to the front, tucks in his shirt and hitches up his pants, and most of the class starts laughing. His smile changes to a serious look, and everyone settled down for a moment. He said "In Senegal we need solidarity for peace. We want to live in a region of nonviolence."
This class, taught by Vieux Malang Diedhiou, was based on curriculum developed by a Senegalese organization: Research Group for Education on Children's Rights and Peace (known by its French initials GRA-REDEP). Working closely with Senegal's Ministry of Education, the curriculum was created over three years ago with about $40,000 from Oxfam America. Gaspard Onokoko, a committed Congolese human rights educator and president of GRA-REDEP, has criss-crossed Senegal, traveling in "bush taxi" mini buses and on foot in the heat and dust to work with education officials to introduce the curriculum to 195 elementary schools in the troubled Casamance region alone. GRA-REDEP is expanding to other areas near the capital Dakar and in western Senegal. Since 2003 more than 1,500 elementary school students have studied peace, human rights, and nonviolent conflict resolution, and nearly 300 teachers have been trained in the curriculum, which also covers basic issues of governance and citizenship.
Onokoko has seen first-hand the destruction of war; he was a political prisoner in Burundi for his work promoting human rights. Since his release and exile to Senegal, he founded GRA-REDEP in order to build a more peaceful future. Children lie at the heart of his strategy.
A tall man with a broad smile, Onokoko speaks very formally and deliberately when asked why children are so important. "If their parents engage in violence and crime, children will learn at a young age to do the same," he says. "These children are the future of Senegal, they represent the wealth of Senegal. They must become citizens who can build a country based on peace that respects human rights. Schools are an important place to do this, to create a culture of peace. Otherwise it is a lot harder to teach this later in life."
GRA-REDEP launched the peace education program in Casamance as it was a region at war for more than 20 years. Sandwiched between Gambia to the north and Guinea Bissau to the south, Casamance is a place apart from the rest of Senegal, a lush region of forests and rivers dominated by the Diola people. A separatist movement emerged in the 1980s among those who felt overlooked by economic progress in Senegal since independence. Separatists have used violence to redress their grievances, and the resulting suffering and poverty have plagued the region. Tragically, many young people joined in the fighting rather than pursuing their studies. A lengthy counterinsurgency campaign by the government finally led to a cease fire and, despite a recent flare-up of cross-border violence between guerilla factions and the Bissau-Guinean military, prospects for peace in Casamance look strong.
The students at Faye Coly have taken on their citizenship lessons with great enthusiasm. They created a student government, elected a president and a cabinet of ministers. Claire Sagna, who at 13 has been the minister of human rights for the last two years, says that the teachers have taught the students to learn how to mediate conflicts between themselves and between students and the faculty. "When there are fights between students, or with students and teachers, our government will come together as a group to develop a solution," she says in a very brisk, business-like manner.
]]>Such lingering hard-line attitudes led to widespread political violence during the 2000 and 2002 elections in Zimbabwe. A 2000 human rights report described a typical incident: A truck transporting people to a party meeting was run off the road and attacked by members of another political group armed with AK-47s and iron bars. While most of the victims of the attack fled, two were trapped in the truck when it was firebombed, and died on the road moments later.
Thankfully, today there is considerably less political violence, and one of the groups that has made change possible is the Zimbabwe Civic Education Trust (ZIMCET). According to director David Chimhini, the organization, founded in 2000, helped eliminate much of the violence in just a couple of years. With funds from Oxfam America, ZIMCET established a network of local "peace committees" that have brought political opponents together to learn about nonviolent conflict resolution.
These peace committees are led both by members of the ruling ZANU-PF political party and their opponents in the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). ZIMCET overcame the climate of distrust by keeping the focus on peace—something neither side could oppose. ZIMCET also cultivated strong relationships with local leaders, who encouraged the new peace committees.
One peace committee created a sports league for youth, many of whom were out of school and lacked employment, which made it easy to get caught up in violence. Another committee concentrated on cultural events. But ZIMCET's main accomplishment has been to help people acknowledge their mistakes and learn to forgive one another. "Our peace committees help people change their attitude towards each other," Chimhini says. "They now say 'Never again'! We will never beat or kill just for an election."
The process has not been easy. Tina Malowa was a much-feared political operative, but after attending training sessions with ZIMCET, her perspective changed. "Sometimes I sit down and think about all the violence and at times I find myself sobbing because I know I did some evil things. Things that I really regret to this day." Her transformation has been both personal and political: "I realized that my thinking was all wrong. In democratic societies, there is bound to be an opposition party."
Beside her, at a meeting in ZIMCET's Harare office, sits Simon Mapuvire, MDC district secretary for Manicaland. Mapuvire has also come a long way. "I was beating ZANU-PF people and I was directing people to beat others," he said candidly. "Then ZIMCET taught me that I was just beating my brothers and sisters. Now Tina is my friend and we work together, and I have thrown away that evil element in my head."
]]>The 25th anniversary of the AIDS epidemic has come and gone, and after all the UN meetings, the hand wringing, and the finger pointing, there remains one key element that has received little press: In the epicenter of the AIDS epidemic—in southern Africa, home to one of every three people in the world living with HIV—it is women like Leona, in Mozambique, who are shouldering a disproportionate burden of the disease.
The problem here is lack of respect for women's rights. In some places in southern Africa women are prohibited by law from owning or inheriting property, and so have few financial assets. This limits their independence, putting them at risk financially, emotionally, and sexually. It is not surprising that more than half of the world's HIV-infected women, more than nine million of them, live in southern Africa, according to the UNAIDS report released in November 2006. With little power to negotiate their sexual activity, females in some areas of southern Africa now represent three quarters of HIV and AIDS infected people aged 15 to 24. When people say AIDS has become a "feminized" epidemic, this is what they mean. In 2004, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed a task force to study the problem. The experts urgently recommended the development of non-discriminatory laws and policies designed to help women protect their rights and reduce their vulnerability.
The countries of southern Africa lack adequate resources (not to mention a vaccine and access to drugs) to care for the millions with HIV and AIDS. Yet unlike the scientific barriers to ending the epidemic, it is well within our power to support women's rights—an essential means to cutting down the number of women infected and affected by HIV and AIDS.
Creating equal rights for women in Africa, like everywhere else, is a challenge. Last May, I saw it for myself. Within an hour of my arrival in South Africa, I heard on the radio that the African National Congress's Deputy President Jacob Zuma was acquitted of charges that he had raped an HIV-positive woman, the daughter of an ANC comrade.
Violence against women is endemic in South Africa, where a woman is raped every 26 seconds. But women's rights experts I met said that the Zuma trial itself said a lot about the country's attitude toward women. There was intense scrutiny of the victim's sexual past, while Zuma's was not considered. Zuma, a potential presidential candidate, arrived at the courthouse in a motorcade with body guards and enjoyed vocal supporters in the streets as he proudly invoked his Zulu culture to explain why he'd had unprotected sex with the woman. By contrast, attempting to ensure her safety and preserve her privacy, the accuser crept into the court through the back door. The discrepancy in power and access to justice was remarkable, especially since the country was just celebrating the 10th anniversary of its progressive constitution, which has very clear provisions guaranteeing equality for men and women before the law.
But for every Zuma trial, there is progress too. The day I encountered Leona in Mozambique, she met with a legal advisor at a women's rights organization in Maputo to learn how to defend her right to stay in her house. Accustomed to claiming a dead relative's assets, her in-laws did not realize that Mozambique had a new Family Law that protects the right of widows to inherit property. "He never had another wife," Leona said, "so no matter what his relatives say, I have the right to inherit the house and things."
In addition to changing laws, proponents of women's right also need to work with cultural leaders to help encourage long-term changes in customs and traditions that discriminate against women. Women themselves are taking this on, sometimes at great personal risk. Cecilia Reis, an elderly traditional healer and guardian of culture and tradition in her community, told me that she is committed to teaching women about their rights under Mozambique's new Family Law to counter the exploitative customs that put them in danger of poverty and abuse. "You have to stand up, face men eye to eye," she told me. "This is the only way for them to see the power of women."
In one of the most notable successes of legal reform in the region, a coalition of five women rights and development organizations in Mozambique, funded by Oxfam America, researched and advocated forthe new Family Law. They showed what strong organizations and committed women can do with the right kind of assistance.
Governments, the UN, international NGOs, and other donors need to expand their horizons in the fight against HIV and AIDS, and address the gender dimension of the crisis. We all have a responsibility to ensure that women like Cecilia have the support they need to create solutions to their own problems. For the most heavily infected and affected part of the world, it is an essential component in the fight against AIDS and the fight for our future.
]]>Although 83.3 percent of the population considers rape to be a crime, 16.7 percent still denies it. This is an alarmingly high percentage which is then reflected in the high rate of rapes. In its 2005 report on crimes (through November), the Attorney General's office reported 2,296 registered cases of rape, sexual aggression and statutory rape. 40.2 percent of the people polled affirm that the place where these types of crimes most often take place is within the home—a place believed to be among the safest for women, boys and girls—and that the person who most often commits the crime is the step father (58.3 percent).
If the previous information sounds alarming, the panorama gets even worse. Seventy percent of those polled believe that the National Civilian Police (PNC) shows little interest in the rape cases that are presented to them, and 20 percent think the PNC could care less. At the same time, the PNC is one of the agencies where people most often go to denounce an act of violence. This was shown by another study done by the Human Rights Ombudswoman's office, which was also supported by Oxfam America.
This study, in addition to asking about the treatment that women receive in the different institutions of the State, also investigated the situation of gender violence within these very institutions. As well as a high rate of sexual harassment, there is a high degree of discrimination in the way women are treated and in opportunities that exist for them. Furthermore, the study reveals salary inequality between men and women. It highlights that although most of the women have a university degree, they usually don't denounce sexual harassment for fear of losing their job or other acts of revenge. Harassers operate with an alarming degree of impunity. In only 3 percent of the cases where harassment was denounced were the perpetrators fired or transferred.
The Human Rights Ombudswoman's Office convened many public functionaries from the aforementioned offices in order to share the results and said they would follow up.
]]>Rodolfo Pocop, the National Coordinator for the National Indigenous and Peasant Council (CONIC), says that despite this violent history, the indigenous people of Guatemala are well-organized, and mobilizing to protect their culture and defend their rights and ancestral lands.He feels their next big challenge is surviving in the "Free Trade" economy in the Americas. The number one concern: international mining projects, which Pocop saysis a significant threat to Mayan lands and culture. In a talk with Oxfam America staff in Guatemala, Pocop explains indigenous concerns about mining and indigenous lands and rights.
"Our ancestors taught us to love mother earth and live in harmony with all natural beings. All our political, economic, and social institutions are part of this heritage. This is the base on which we construct the future. The valleys, the plains, the mountains, the deserts, the oceans, the rivers, the condor, the eagle, the hummingbird, the puma, the jaguar—they are all witness to our collective systems of living, based on sustainability of humans and the environment.
We were kicked off our original lands by the colonizers, and then by our governments. We were divided in order to guarantee political control and pushed onto inhospitable lands. We are now trying to manage these lands by the conservation of biodiversity and natural resources. This started in 1492 and continued through the 19th century. In 1954, the best, most productive indigenous lands were passed to private hands, like the banana companies. Big areas now grow cotton and sugar cane; the best lands are for coffee production. In 1954, our culture and our collective ways of living were destroyed, and collective property was abolished.
[From 1960] until 1996, there was an armed conflict. Part of the reason for this was the concentration of wealth in the hands of no more than 30 families. They had all the economic and political power and social control over the country. Seventy percent of the population, the indigenous people, did not even have basic legal rights. We did not get any benefits from the government, we were just used as cheap labor, almost slaves or indentured servants. During the 36 years of armed conflict, 83 percent of the victims were among the indigenous Mayan people.
In Guatemala we have a republican constitution, almost a literal copy of the US Constitution. Only in articles 66 to 70 are indigenous people mentioned. We are seen as resources and folklore. Our fundamental rights are not recognized.
Discrimination is structural, it comes from the government, and it is replicated in the educational system. It teaches more about other cultures than our own. And for that reason, when we speak our own language and wear our traditional clothing, they say that we are inferior to those who are not Mayan. They assume that other peoples' culture is superior to that which is here.
If the state structure discriminates against indigenous people, then this is converted into exclusion from development. These last four years we have seen an example of this exclusion : 85 percent of the national budget was spent in the urban areas; 15 percent was for rural areas. But not even this amount reached the countryside due to high levels of corruption and misuse of funds.
The social fabric of indigenous communities has been torn. If we have survived for 500 years, it is not just chance. It is because our grandmothers and grandfathers have taught us to survive by growing crops without chemical fertilizer, and to live together, in solidarity, in harmony between humans, nature, Mother Earth, the birds, and animals."
"Before the first conquerors came, the Maya worked with gold, and silver, and other metals. They used these resources, but for personal and domestic usage. It was not for export. Now the extraction of metals comes with a cost. It is breaking the harmony between families and nature.
We are concerned about mining, and the way it is done, with open pits. Cyanide is highly toxic for humans.
We also can't understand why these companies don't respect something very important and fundamental to our survival: our own perspective and spirituality. Ours is not any old religion. Our spirituality is precisely the harmony between humans, Mother Earth, space, and nature. When we see the respect to Mother Earth is lost, we feel our roots are touched. And that is what is taken from us. It is like an extermination of our cultural identity, a moral extermination of our historical memory, of our grandmothers and grandfathers and what they have contributed to the development of humanity. This is the harmony of the Maya.
A whole system of life and culture is being destroyed. Scientific data and analysis show one impact, on nature, but to us it is deeper. We feel like this kind of mining represents a destruction of life and culture. So we are denouncing this new system of development, because it is passing over our right to be consulted, which is protected by the International Labor Organization Convention No. 169.
The benefit of mining to Guatemala is about one percent of the earnings generated, and only about half of one percent is for the municipality. So after all the millions and millions are taken out, half of one percent is nothing. And after they are done, they will leave our lands and they will be no longer useful for agriculture.
In the case of the Marlin mine, they project 109,000 ounces of gold and silver. With this comes the destruction of 10,000 hectares of land. There will be a lot of Mayan communities unable to survive into the future.
Our struggle going forward as indigenous people directly affected by mining is based on three principles: we will keep struggling so that our cultural rights as indigenous peoples are recognized; under no conditions will we negotiate with the government or companies the principles of lands and territories—we have a territory, and this should be respected; and we have the freedom of self determination about our lands and territories and their resources."
"We do not have a formal mining code that reflects our world view. Our ministry of energy and mines does not recognize that we have a right to be consulted each time they want to take a product out of our territory. Our government does not take into consideration the priorities of the indigenous people. It does not know about rural poverty and realities and does not understand indigenous peoples.
A high level commission is now developing a mining law. The government is trying to please every sector—using a sort of double discourse. When they speak to us, they say "Oh, you indigenous people, we love you and admire you" and they are going to give us all these things. And when the transnational companies come, they do the same thing. It is selling Guatemala, and keeping a good relationship with everyone while doing it.
The issue is not for them to give us something; the issue is for them to recognize our ancestral rights."
]]>In any society, developing or not, women are likely to be poorer, less educated, and less empowered than men. Oxfam recognizes women should be valued equally and enabled to reach their potential. What’s more, research has shown that when women earn income, they are more likely than men to spend it on family welfare. And when women are educated, they make decisions that benefit their families and influence their communities.
In the pages that follow, you'll read about how Oxfam is targeting the laws in Mozambique and the gender violence in El Salvador that severely disadvantage women. You'll also learn how Oxfam is equipping women to mediate peace in West Africa and to grow the income of their families. In every case, when it comes to empowering women, men are an equal part of the equation. Oxfam is striving to shape societies that not only permit women to be contributors, but societies that recognize that if they don't seize upon what women can offer, they are failing to leverage one of their most valuable assets.
]]>Also in this issue, working together to save the family farm, the power of reading empowers women in The Gambia, and updates on Oxfam's work in Bolivia and in eastern and southern Africa.
]]>Oxfam?s report, "Climate Wrongs and Human Rights", sets out a new vision for a rights-based approach to climate change policymaking and highlights where current climate change negotiations are far from delivering what?s needed. Oxfam is submitting the report to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which is now reviewing the relationship between international human rights and climate change.
?People have an inherent right to a safe, secure, and healthy life, but this right is being threatened by the global climate crisis,? said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. ?Carbon emissions from industrialized countries have human and environmental consequences. As a result, climate change is violating the basic human rights of millions of the world?s poorest people to life, security, food, health and shelter.?
The organization called on climate change policies at national and international levels to be based on existing human rights principles.
?National and international leaders must recognize and address the harm to people occurring today and that will continue as a result of climate change,? said Offenheiser. ?The principles of human rights provide a strong foundation for policy making, as all states must respect, protect and fulfill human rights, and these principles must be put at the heart of a global deal to tackle global climate change.?
But current negotiations are currently off track to deliver the needed policies, according to Oxfam. The report asserts that adaptation financing for poor countries is being woefully under-resourced and that rich countries are failing to deliver sufficient finance and technology to help poor countries shift to low-carbon pathways and realize their right to development. Developed countries, led by the G8, are proposing merely to halve global emissions by 2050, when a cut of at least 80% in emissions by 2050 is necessary to prevent a catastrophic 2ï¾°C temperature increase that is likely to cause widespread violations of rights.
?If international negotiations do not deliver needed remedies for ongoing human rights violations caused by climate change, poor countries may be forced to explore other options, such as the possibility of litigation,? said Offenheiser. ?Rich country polluters in developed countries have been aware of their liability for many years now. If they fail to cut emissions and help people now, they could face legal action later.?
The authors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights could never have imagined having to deal with such a complex global challenge as climate change, so human right laws and institutions must evolve fast to keep up, according to Oxfam. While lawyers should push to have international courts recognize future injury and joint liability for climate-change damage, existing human rights principles are clearly sufficient to guide rich countries? policies to cut their emissions and finance adaptation.
?Urgently cutting emissions is the only way to respect and protect human rights from being violated by the impacts of climate change, and funding adaptation for the poorest people is the only remedy for those whose human rights have already been violated,? said Offenheiser.
]]>