Nyagatare Valens's Blog

Great Debate On Healthcare Reform

Nyagatare — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:38:17 EDT

April 23, 2008 Health Care Reform: Design Principles for a Patient-Centered, Consumer-Based Market by Edmund F. Haislmaier Backgrounder #2128

State and federal lawmakers are focusing increasingly on health care reform, and a growing number are expressing serious interest in "patient-focused" or "consumer-centered" approaches. This is certainly a positive development. Lawmakers of both parties are now more inclined to advocate making the patient the focus of America's health care system.

However, the vocabulary of health care policy is often elastic, and different people use the same terms to express significantly different concepts. This elasticity adds to the general confusion among the public and policymakers that seems to plague this area of public policy and often results in legislators and taxpayers talking at cross-purposes or past one another.

Consequently, clarifying the rationale, objectives, and principles of consumer-centered health care reform is important so that participants in the discussions, particularly the taxpayers, accurately comprehend the concepts and implications of this approach and are better equipped to evaluate the various proposed reforms at the federal and state levels.

Key Principles

The fundamental objective of a patient-centered health care system is to maximize value for individuals and families so that they receive more benefit and better results for their health care dollars, both as patients and as consumers buying health insurance. Only when individuals choose and own their own health insurance will the other actors in the system—health plans and providers—have the right incentives to deliver better value in the form of improved results at lower prices.

If policymakers are serious about real patient-centered, consumer-driven health care reform, they should ensure that their legislative proposals embody six key principles:

Individuals are the key decision makers inthe health care system. This would be a major departure from conventional third-party payment arrangements that dominate today's health care financing in both the public and the private sectors. In a normal market based on personal choice and free-market competition, consumers drive the system.
Individuals buy and own their own health insurance coverage.In a normal market, when individuals exchange money for a good or service, they acquire a property right in that good or service, but in today's system, individuals and families rarely have property rights in their health insurance coverage. The policy is owned and controlled by a third party, either their employers or government officials. In a reformed system, individuals would own their health insurance, just as they own virtually every other type of insurance in virtually every other sector of the economy.
Individuals choose their own health insurance coverage.Individuals, not employers or government officials, would choose the health care coverage and level of coverage that they think best. In a normal market, the primacy of consumer choice is the rule, not the exception.
Individuals have a wide range of coverage choices.Suppliers of medical goods and services, including health plans, could freely enter and exit the health care market.
Prices are transparent.As in a normal market, individuals as consumers would actually know the prices of the health insurance plan or the medical goods and services that they are buying. This would help them to compare the value that they receive for their money.
Individuals have the periodic opportunity to change health coverage.In a consumer-driven health insurance market, individuals would have the ability to pick a new health plan on predictable terms. They would not be locked into past decisions and deprived of the opportunity to make future choices.

The Key Tests of Reform

Notall health care reform legislation that is labeled consumer-oriented is equally effective or significant. The key test is whether or not it puts in place structural changes that maximize the ability of a large number of individuals to make basic choices about their own health insurance coverage and medical care.

Individuals are both consumers and patients. In a consumer-centered health system, individuals directly control the flow of dollars, buy and own their own health plans, pick the kinds of coverage that they want, and determine which plans offer them the best value.

In such a system, consumers expect transparent prices, and consumer choice stimulates competition among plans and providers to offer better value for money. That competition, in turn, drives innovation in both clinical practice and plan design. For individuals as patients and consumers, value for money is judged in terms of results: better medical outcomes, improvements in their health condition or status, cost-effective treatments, and health plans that save them money by helping them stay well and, when they do need care, by identifying the providers that offer the best results at the best price for their particular condition.

Thus, true consumer-centered health reform is system-focused reform, not product-focused reform. Its objective is to improve performance and results by changing the basic structure and incentives of health care markets so as to maximize value for money in health insurance and medical care. It is not simply an exercise in legislating new product designs or trying to plug gaps in coverage by crafting new programs for targeted subpopulations. Instead, true consumer-centered health reform focuses on making fundamental structural changes in the system, as opposed to merely expanding the existing system or micromanaging insurance plan designs or provider reimbursement methodologies.

Policymakers need to step out of the conventional mindset that accepts the basic structure of the present system as a given and attempts only to modify it around the edges. For example, legislative proposals to promote certain product types— e.g., health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and health savings accounts (HSAs)—may well have beneficial effects, but they do not fundamentally change how the system functions as long as someone else picks the health plan for the individual. Similarly, no amount of regulatory tinkering with provider reimbursement rates or payment methodologies can create more than marginal improvements in value as long as the system vests control over key decisions with employer and government "payers" who are not the ones receiving the medical care or using the health insurance policy.

Rather, consumer-centered health reform challenges policymakers to redesign the basic rules of the health care market to create new incentives for all of the actors in the system to put the interests of consumers and patients first.

Properly designed structural reforms will also produce a better framework and new incentives for addressing the current system's failings in cost, access, and quality more effectively. If responding to consumer needs and preferences is made the organizing principle of the system, then insurers and providers will have the right incentives to develop innovative ways to deliver better value to consumers and patients in the form of lower costs and improved outcomes.

In a reformed market, competition will produce new and better plan designs, clinical practices, and provider payment arrangements without lawmakers needing to micromanage the process. At the same time, it will generate new opportunities for lawmakers to focus public assistance more effectively to ensure that all Americans have access to the benefits of a system that offers better value.

The fundamental problem with the current system is that it encourages all participants (payers, insurers, providers, and patients) to engage in a giant game of cost-shifting, with each party trying to stick one or more of the others with a bigger share of the bill. Thus, while there may be plenty of competition in the present system, much of it is a zero-sum competition in which there is a loser for every winner. What America's health care system desperately needs are structural changes that create positive-sum competition in which all participants can "win" by working, often collaboratively, to improve the health care value proposition.[1]

The Consumer As Key Decision Maker

The place to start examining any economic or social system is with its basic organizing principle, which is identified by asking "Who is the key decision maker in the system?" In any economic or social system, the key decision maker is the one who sets the parameters for the other participants in the system. The other participants must act in response to the needs or preferences of the key decision makers.

Political science clarifies this process. For example, in a democratic system of representative government, the organizing principle is popular sovereignty, identified by the fact that voters are the key decision makers. Other participants (e.g., office holders, public employees, lobbyists, and interest groups) operate within the framework of the preferences periodically expressed by voters in elections. To advance his or her interests successfully, another participant must ultimately persuade voters either that they already want what the participant is proposing or that they should want it.

This creates a cascading chain of incentives throughout the system. For example, the most successful way for a lobbyist to persuade a politician to vote for what the lobbyist wants is to show the politician how such a vote would be popular with voters.

Other political systems (e.g., monarchies, aristocracies, and dictatorships) have different organizing principles, each of which can be determined by identifying the key decision makers in these systems.

The same holds true in economics. Most market economic systems are "consumer-driven" because the individual customer is the key decision maker. The other participants (e.g., producers, shippers, wholesalers, and retailers) must operate within the framework of the consumers' preferences as expressed through their purchases. To advance their own interests successfully, the other players must find ways to persuade customers either that they are offering what the customers already want or that the customers should want what they are offering.

Again, the result is a cascading chain of incentives. Thus, the surest way for a shipper to get a producer's business is to demonstrate that it can deliver goods to retailers or consumers more quickly and at less cost.

As in politics, alternative economic system designs can be recognized by identifying the key decision makers and, thus, the systems' organizing principles.

For example, the organizing principle of a monopoly is that the economic sector is "producer-driven." A monopoly exists (whether by accident or by design) when only one producer provides a particular product, thus making that producer the key decision maker. With no alternative producers available, other participants in the sector (e.g., consumers and retailers) are constrained by what the sole producer decides to produce and its quantity, timing, and price.

Likewise, when suppliers collude, such as through a guild or cartel, the resulting market can be described as "supplier-driven," reflecting the fact that suppliers hold the key decision-making power in that particular sector.

The Health Care Sector Anomaly

In health care, on the supply side of the supply and demand equation are physicians, hospitals, and other health care professionals and institutions. Collectively, they are commonly referred to as health care providers. On the demand side are the patients who are seeking or receiving medical treatment. The broader term "consumer" encompasses not only patients, but also individuals who, while not actively seeking or receiving medical care, purchase related products and services, most notably health insurance.

In the U.S. and many other countries, health care differs from most other economic sectors because government policies have sponsored, promoted, and maintained an anomaly in the sector—an additional set of participants known as third-party payers. While individuals always ultimately pay the costs of any health system, governments have instituted policies that effectively divert a portion of their incomes into the hands of others (the payers), who then make the basic or key decisions on how to spend the money on behalf of patients.

The simplest variant of this arrangement is the single-payer system, in which the government taxes its citizens and then pays medical providers for treating them. The U.S. and some other countries have developed multipayer variants of the same basic model.

In multipayer health systems, the government is almost always one of the payers, but its role is more limited than in single-payer systems, typically operating tax-funded medical care payment programs only for certain subgroups of the population. For example, in the U.S., the federal government runs a tax-funded single-payer system for the elderly called Medicare, while the state governments run a similar system for the poor called Medicaid.

However, for the majority of individuals in countries operating multipayer health systems, the relevant third-party payers are private entities such as employers, unions, or associations. These private payers divert a portion of their workers' or members' income either to buy health insurance or to pay medical bills directly on behalf of their employees or members. These arrangements can be either mandatory, as in Germany, or voluntary, as in the U.S.[2]

Yet, in a voluntary third-party payment system, individuals are unlikely to hand over large chunks of their income and the authority to spend it without something that makes the arrangement significantly more advantageous to them than buying the services directly. That is particularly true for something as personal and important as health insurance and medical care.

In the U.S., these arrangements exist largely because employee compensation that is diverted through employers to buy the employees' health insurance is exempt from federal income and payroll taxes. In contrast, if workers wanted their employers to divert part of their compensation for other purposes—such as buying groceries, paying for their housing, or leasing cars for their personal use—they would find that tax law treats such arrangements as income and taxes the workers accordingly. While the law does not prevent employers and workers from entering into third-party payment arrangements for food, housing, transportation, or anything else, such arrangements are uncommon because they offer no clear advantage (tax or otherwise) to workers over receiving their compensation in cash and then paying directly for the goods or services of their choice.

The Evolution of the Health Care System

Current health care systems are a relatively recent phenomenon. They evolved in response to advances in biology, chemistry, and physics since the end of the 19th century that transformed medicine into a scientific discipline and an expanding economic sector. Even though the purpose of medicine is to better the lives and health of patients, the health care financing arrangements that evolved over the past century have never been truly consumer-centered.

Through at least the first half of the 20th century, health systems were essentially provider-centered. Patients were expected to defer to the judgment of medical professionals and to pay what was charged. It was considered highly unprofessional for physicians to engage in explicit price competition. Hospitals granted admitting privileges to physicians, and physicians referred patients to the hospitals where they had such privileges. Thus, a hospital's real customers were the doctors who controlled the flow of paying patients, not the patients themselves.

This basic structure persisted even as third-party payers, whether governments or employers, were introduced into the equation. Third-party payers were expected to pay the usual and customary charges billed by physicians and hospitals for their services, but not to question the benefits, quality, or value of these services. This provider-centered focus can be seen in early health insurance arrangements. For example, in the 1930s, hospitals organized Blue Cross and doctors organized Blue Shield to guarantee providers steady, predictable income streams by having patients—and later, their employers—effectively prepay for medical care on a subscription basis.

However, the resulting growth in the cost of medical care eventually spurred payers to start questioning the bills, beginning in the 1970s. At first, the focus was on the prices charged by providers. Payers, both government programs and private insurers working for the employers who were their customers, imposed payment limits on provider charges. Over time, those initial limits evolved into complex and comprehensive payer-imposed provider fee schedules.

However, as the payers soon discovered, prices constituted only half of the cost equation. Costs were still climbing thanks to steady increases in the volume and intensity of the medical care being provided. In recent decades, payers have tried to tackle this other half of the cost equation with a variety of restrictions on patient access to specific treatments or technologies.

The result is that today's health care financing systems, whether at home or abroad, are functionally payer-centered, with third-party payers having displaced providers as the key decision makers in the system.

In this specific sense, there is no qualitative difference between a single-payer system and a multipayer system. Both systems are payer-centered. Consequently, both systems generate the same incentives for other participants to respond to payers' demands and preferences rather than those of providers or patients. In a single-payer or a multipayer system, the payers decide whether or not to contract out to private insurers all or part of their role in managing the system, and they determine the terms and extent of such contracts. Private insurers therefore first serve the interests of the third-party payers who are their customers.

Thus, the relevant question is "For whom do the private insurers work?" not "Are private insurers part of the system?"

The Alternative: A Patient-Centered, Consumer-Based System

The obvious shortcoming of a provider-centered system is that it distorts the system in the direction of providing more, regardless of cost. The natural tendency of providers is to assume that increasing the volume and intensity of medical services will generate more benefit. Of course, this assumption is not consistently true. Depending on the circumstances, a particular test or therapy can be unnecessary or ineffective. Indeed, many medical interventions entail significant risks to the patient and can cause more harm than good. At other times, the modest benefits are not worth the costs.

In contrast, the shortcoming of a payer-centered system is that it distorts the system in the opposite direction by focusing on the cost side of the equation to the detriment of the benefit side. The most obvious, most effective, and simplest way to limit costs is by not spending money, but simply paying less or refusing to pay at all does not inherently produce more benefit or better value for the patient.

Furthermore, both a provider-centered system and a payer-centered system have an inherent bias to favor short-term considerations over long-term considerations. In a provider-centered system, the incentive is to do more now without adequately considering the possibility that such a course of action could produce a worse result later. In a payer-centered system, the incentive is to save money today without adequately considering the possibility that this could increase future costs.

Neither a provider-centered system nor a payer-centered system has the requisite incentives to maximize value systematically and consistently. Only consumers have a natural interest in a system that reduces costs while simultaneously improving results over the long term.

For any economic system to be value-maximizing, it must consistently and broadly reward consumers with lower cost and greater benefits if they seek the best value and must reward producers and suppliers with more business and higher incomes if they offer a better value than their competitors.

Thus, the foundational insight behind consumer-centered health care reform is that the only way to achieve better value in health care is to make the consumer the key decision maker in the system. Only when users and payers are the same will the incentives in the health care system properly align to seek and generate better value. Since third-party payers are never the users of the system—after all, doctors and hospitals treat people, they don't treat governments or companies—the only way to align the incentives to produce better value is to give those who use the system (patients and consumers) control over the funding and the associated spending decision. No other alternative arrangement can systematically and consistently produce more for less and secure value for the patient.

The Objectives of Patient-Centered, Consumer-Based Reform

The overarching objective of consumer-centered health care reform is to transform the health care market into one that maximizes value, meaning that the system's operational dynamic is competition among participants to produce better results at lower cost for patients and consumers. Once delivering better value to consumers becomes what enables other participants (e.g., doctors, hospitals, insurers, drug makers, and insurance agents) to "win" within the system, many of the current problems start to solve themselves. A consumer-centered system begins to control costs because it creates increased pressure to justify costs better in terms of demonstrated benefit. At the same time, a consumer-centered system generates pressure to improve results by demanding data showing that anticipated benefits are commensurate with expected costs.

Consumer choice also creates stronger incentives for measuring and reporting quality and performance because consumers need that information to make better decisions, thus producing improvements in those areas as well. Even a portion of the access problem begins to solve itself. When health insurance attaches to the person instead of to the job, fewer people encounter circumstances in which they lose their health insurance coverage, and the size of the uninsured population is commensurately reduced.

A secondary objective is to provide lawmakers with a better foundation on which to build complementary public policies that more effectively address those access issues that competitive markets alone cannot solve. For example, the existence of a consumer-centered market for food makes it easier for policymakers to assist those who need help beyond what the market can provide through such means as subsidies in the form of food stamps or targeted incentives for grocery stores to operate in economically or geographically marginal, underserved areas. In a similar fashion, the presence of a consumer-centered, value-maximizing health system would allow lawmakers to focus tax dollars on helping those individuals who are financially or geographically disadvantaged to "buy into" a well-functioning system.

Another secondary objective is to encourage greater innovation. In this regard, health system innovation encompasses not only medical innovation to produce new and better treatments and therapies, but also innovation in organization and financing such as developing better clinical practices for treating patients, better provider payment arrangements, and better insurance plan designs.

This last point is particularly important. By putting the interests of patients and consumers first, a consumer-centered system forces other participants, particularly insurers and providers, to rethink their relationships and interactions. The current confrontational dynamic, in which providers try to force payers to spend more and payers try to force providers to charge less and do less, becomes an unproductive strategy for both sides because it does not produce the better value that consumers want. Instead, in a consumer-centered market, providers and insurers would find that they can both win (gain market share and increase income) if they collaborate to deliver better value (more benefits for less costs) to patients and consumers. This forces them to think more creatively and urgently about how providers can improve their quality, results, and efficiency and how insurers can restructure provider payment and contracting arrangements to capture newly created value and pass the savings and benefits on to their customers.[3]

The Key Principles of Real Reform

Lawmakers looking to design the right policy framework for enabling a consumer-centered, value-maximizing health system need to start with six key principles.

PRINCIPLE #1: Individual consumers are the key decision makers in the system.

In a consumer-centered health care system, individuals are the key decision makers with respect to medical treatments and health insurance. The current payers in the system (governments and employers) will still play an important role, but in a different fashion. They will no longer manage the details of the system, but will instead play supporting roles in assisting consumers, who become the system's primary decision makers. The role of employer will center on providing their employees as consumers with financial engineering and decision-support services.

The financial engineering aspect encompasses various employer strategies to help workers participate in the system more efficiently. For example, the workplace is a convenient location for distributing information and handling administrative tasks, such as workers choosing coverage from a menu of options during an annual open season. Similarly, employer participation in an automatic payroll deduction system for insurance premiums is an administrative efficiency that benefits workers at very little cost to employers.

Most important, as long as federal tax policy treats worker compensation for health care as tax-free to the worker if it is passed through the employer's hands, employers can leverage the tax code to ensure that their employees' spending on health insurance and medical care takes advantage of that favorable tax treatment. Doing so effectively lowers the cost of health insurance and medical care to workers by 15 percent to 50 percent because workers do not pay taxes on this compensation.[4]

Employers can also play a decision-support role by assisting their employees with information and guidance in making health care choices. Most often, this will take the form of the employer or an insurance broker under contract with the employer helping individual workers pick the insurance plans that best suit their personal circumstances and preferences. Employers can also offer their employees a range of related services, such as workplace clinics; health promotion programs; information on the costs, risks, and benefits of common treatments; and comparative data on the quality and results of health care providers. Employers inclined in this direction will find that numerous vendors already exist who are willing and able to bring these and similar programs into the workplace.

For governments, their role in a consumer-centered system shifts to financial assistance. Ultimately, the goal should be for the government to stop trying to design and operate public health insurance plans and instead focus on providing disadvantaged individuals with the necessary funds to buy into the same consumer-centered system that everyone else uses.

This will primarily take the form of steps to shift public assistance from a defined-benefit model to a premium-support model. In the current defined-benefit model, the government operates separate public health insurance plans for specified subsets of the population—something that government is poorly equipped to do competently. In a premium-support model, the government would operate programs to supplement the incomes of those who do not have sufficient funds to buy adequate health insurance and medical care in the market, just as the government now does with food stamps to help the poor buy groceries.

In some places, such as rural areas or economically distressed locations, governments might also provide assistance in the form of targeted subsidies or incentives to ensure that essential health services are available—for example, by funding clinics or offering inducements to health professionals to practice in those areas.

PRINCIPLE #2: Individuals buy and own their own health insurance coverage.

For a health system to be consumer-driven, health insurance coverage must be purchased and owned by individual consumers. In other words, the coverage contract must be an agreement between the insurer and the individual consumer. If the contract is between the insurer and some other party, such as an employer or a government, then the other party, not the individual consumer, is the insurer's real customer.

While at one level a coverage contract is a legal arrangement, it is primarily an economic arrangement. The legal aspects of the contract simply define the specifics of the underlying economic arrangement between the insurer as the supplier and the counterparty as the customer. As a supplier, the insurer is legally obligated and economically motivated to work in the interest of its customers. However, when the counterparty is an employer or government, that entity becomes the insurer's customer, and the counterparty's interests may differ from or be contrary to the individual's interests, even if the coverage is ostensibly purchased for the individual.

A simple analogy illustrates this key point. When a parent purchases breakfast cereal for a child, the customer is the parent, not the child. The parent and the child may have different opinions as to the best cereal to purchase. Indeed, these different opinions likely result from differences between the interests and preferences of the parent and the child. For example, the child likely prefers flavor over nutrition, while the parent will likely view nutrition as more important than flavor. Of course, the child's preferences likely influence, at least partially, the parent's decision, and cereal makers may even try to exploit this by pitching advertising to the child in the hope that he will influence his parents.

Ultimately, the buying decision rests with the parent, who is therefore the cereal maker's true customer. For the child to be the customer, the child must make the purchasing decision, using either his own money or money given him by a parent. Absent such a shift in decision-making authority, to sell more cereal, the cereal maker must first make its products attractive to the parents who will buy them, regardless of how attractive it makes the cereals to the children who will eat them. This means that the cereal maker must focus on the aspects that matter most to parents, such as nutritional content or pricing that gives them good value for their money.

While parents letting their children choose which breakfast cereal to buy is probably not a good idea, having individual consumers—not their employers or the government—choose their own health insurance plans is a good idea.

PRINCIPLE #3: Individual consumers choose their own health insurance coverage.

Individual ownership of coverage is an essential criterion for a consumer-driven market, but it is not the only criterion. A market characterized by individuals purchasing the product is still not a consumer-driven market if only one product is available, if there is only one supplier, or if the suppliers are organized in a cartel.

In such monopolistic circumstances, the lack of meaningful choice for consumers means that the key decision-making power still resides on the supply side of the economic equation. For the market-shaping power of the key decision maker to shift from the supply side to the demand side, consumers must have a choice of competing products and suppliers. Only then must suppliers respond to consumers instead of the other way around.

The linchpin of a consumer-centered health care market is the opportunity for individuals to choose the health insurance coverage that best suits their own preferences. While choice of health care providers is certainly essential to a well-functioning, consumer-centered market, the ability to choose among a diverse array of competing health insurance plans is the most important feature. This is true for two reasons.

First,health insurance is the principal mechanism for financing medical care. Indeed, this is true even when consumers opt for high-deductible plans and purchase much of their routine medical care directly from providers. For a health system to be truly consumer-centered, individual consumers must ultimately decide how the money in the system is spent. Thus, the first and most basic decision that consumers must be allowed to make is which health insurance plan to purchase.

Second,the choice of a health insurance plan of necessity incorporates a whole set of other implicit choices, such as what the plan will pay for versus what the consumer will purchase directly from providers, how and from whom the consumer will receive care, and how the plan will assist consumers in deciding among competing providers and treatment options. This last consideration is particularly important. Even the most sophisticated consumer may not have all of the relevant information available or have sufficient time to gather and analyze it when deciding among providers and treatments. However, health plans have—or should have—the information and expertise to assist consumers in making these decisions.

What consumers want is good value—meaning the best medical care at the best price. In a competitive market in which consumers choose their own health insurance, insurers succeed and prosper by offering consumers a better value proposition than their competitors offer. In other words, they apply their data and expertise to finding their customers the best medical care at the best price or, better yet, to finding ways to help their customers minimize their medical spending by staying or becoming healthy.

Thus, when individual consumers decide which insurance plan to purchase, insurers become the consumers' expert agents, helping them to navigate the health care system and obtain the best results at the lowest cost.

PRINCIPLE #4: Individuals have a wide range of coverage choices.

In any truly consumer-centered market, multiple suppliers compete to offer consumers better products at better prices. Yet for market competition to produce better value consistently—that is, by simultaneously increasing benefits while decreasing costs—consumers must be free to choose from a range of different options, and suppliers must have wide latitude to innovate in meeting consumer demands and preferences with new and better products. Thus, a precondition to any well-functioning, consumer-centered market is that lawmakers avoid unduly restricting either the options available to consumers or the scope for supplier innovation.

Government does need to set some basic rules for any well-functioning market. Much like establishing product safety standards or a uniform system of weights and measures, government can establish rules that facilitate well-functioning markets without unduly restricting supplier innovation or consumer choice. However, for a competitive market to function optimally, the basic rules need to permit wide scope for suppliers to innovate in developing new and better products and features to meet consumer needs and preferences.

Furthermore, lawmakers need to recognize that not all consumers have the same needs, preferences, or priorities. Suppliers must be free to innovate in offering different products to different subsets of consumers, targeting their different needs and preferences. This is particularly important in the health care sector where constantly expanding scientific knowledge and the resulting innovations in medical treatment force continual reassessment of what is "best" for individual patients and specific medical conditions.

For example, in health care, it is appropriate for government to limit the practice of medicine to those who demonstrate adequate knowledge and skill, but lawmakers should avoid inappropriately restricting provider competition with rules beyond those necessary to ensure basic provider competence and patient safety. Likewise, lawmakers should also take care to avoid imposing regulations that needlessly micromanage providers, stifle innovation in clinical practices, or favor one set of providers over another.[5]

In the same fashion, lawmakers need to set basic standards and rules for health insurance products and the companies that offer them. Yet they need to resist the temptation to substitute their judgment for the consumers' judgment.

In setting health insurance market rules, lawmakers should focus on establishing the broad market parameters and allow market competition to work out the details. For example, in setting coverage standards, lawmakers should limit themselves to specifying basic coverage categories, such as physician services, hospital services, and prescription drugs. They should avoid micromanaging the market by, among other things, imposing coverage mandates for specific conditions or treatments or by stipulating how plans must contract with providers.

Similarly, lawmakers should not enact measures that favor one particular plan design over others. Government policy should treat all plan designs (e.g., HMO, preferred provider organization (PPO), indemnity insurance, and HSA with high-deductible insurance) equally. Such an approach not only permits beneficial competition and innovation, but just as importantly respects and accommodates differing personal preferences among consumers.

PRINCIPLE #5: Prices are transparent to consumers.

The same holds true in establishing rules for the price side of the price/benefit equation. In all cases, lawmakers should avoid direct "price setting" because such interventions inevitably distort the market in ways that end up harming both suppliers and consumers.

Yet government does play a legitimate role in ensuring that a market functions fairly and smoothly by establishing basic pricing rules, which enable consumers to comparison shop effectively by clearly informing them up front about the price of each option. For example, government requires grocers to include the unit price on the label of products sold by weight or volume and requires lenders to disclose the effective annual percentage rate (APR) of a loan when offering financing to prospective borrowers.

In a similar fashion, lawmakers will need to reach agreement with stakeholders on the appropriate standards for calculating and communicating prices to consumers in the health system. While enhanced price transparency at the provider level will certainly improve the functioning of the health system, the bigger issue will be the rules for how insurers price their health plan offerings.

Because insurance premiums can be calculated in a number of different ways, lawmakers need to establish rules for reporting those prices so that consumers can comparison shop among the different offerings. In other words, which factors and parameters will be used in reporting prices? Will prices (premiums) be reported on an age-adjusted basis? If so, will the competing plans produce rate tables priced in one-year age increments, or will five-year age increments be sufficient for insurers and simpler for consumers? Lawmakers will need to address similar questions about other possible rating factors, such as geography and family status.

Regardless of the specifics, lawmakers need to establish some set of basic rules on reporting premiums. Otherwise, if competing insurers priced their plans in different ways, or if insurers customized the premium charged to each individual customer, it would be difficult or even impossible for consumers to comparison shop among plans. Without some agreed convention on reporting prices, the balance of power in the market shifts back to the supplier because the answer to the consumer's question "What is the price?" becomes "It depends." This makes it difficult for consumers to weigh the relative costs and benefits of competing options accurately and makes the market supplier-driven instead of consumer-driven.

The specifics of the pricing convention are less important than making certain that some standard pricing convention is used. For example, for many years the standard convention on the New York Stock Exchange was to price stocks in eighths of a U.S. dollar, while the London Stock Exchange used hundredths of a British pound. Although they used different pricing conventions, both markets worked equally smoothly. Indeed, when U.S. stock markets switched to using hundredths of a U.S. dollar, some market participants fared marginally better or worse than they had fared under the previous convention, but the markets continued to function smoothly. In contrast, a stock market would become less transparent and less efficient if each company was listed using its own choice of currency and fractional system.

In setting these and other market parameters, lawmakers should focus on ensuring that the resulting rules are transparent and equitable to consumers and that they provide insurers with a level playing field while accommodating their legitimate business concerns.

PRINCIPLE #6: Consumers have regular opportunities to make coverage choices on predictable terms.

For a market to be truly consumer-centered, individuals must be able, at least periodically, to reconsider past purchasing decisions and make different ones. A market that restricts consumer choice by unreasonably locking consumers into past decisions also has the effect of shifting the balance of power in the market back to suppliers.

For example, if a market rule locked consumers into buying new cars only from the manufacturers of their first cars, this would clearly shift market power from consumers back to suppliers and reduce producer competition and its resulting benefits. With much of its customer base locked into its product line, each producer would have significantly less incentive to respond to consumer demands for better products, more innovative features, and lower prices.

For the health insurance market to be truly consumer-driven, a clear set of rules must establish when and under what terms consumers can choose among competing options. Otherwise, adverse selection or constant churning could undermine the stability and viability of these markets. Nonetheless, these rules need to ensure that the market puts the interests of consumers firmly ahead of the interests of suppliers (the insurers) while still accommodating the legitimate business concerns of the suppliers.

This feature of consumer-centered health reform will likely be the most unsettling to many insurers because it will require them to adjust their business practices to accommodate a new market dynamic in which the customer picks the supplier. In the current dynamic, the supplier picks its customers through various strategies that focus on selling to some potential customers but not to others.

In setting this portion of the market rules for a consumer-centered system, lawmakers need to start from a clear understanding of both the product in question and the needs and behavior of consumers.

A significant portion of any health insurance plan is not insurance in the classic sense of financial protection against unpredictable risks or costs. All health insurance plans still retain some element of this protection, but it is no longer their primary feature. Rather, a large share of health insurance today consists of prepayment for medical care of varying cost and predictability. While the concept of using health insurance to pay for a full range of possible medical care was originally developed decades ago to serve the providers' interest in having more predictable income, that concept has since superseded its original intent.

Today, health insurance plans are a way for consumers to manage their need to finance medical care of varying predictability. In recent decades, advances in medical science have steadily made more medical services more predictable for more patients. Furthermore, the current trends in scientific discoveries and their practical applications in the clinical setting will make even more medical care more predictable for more patients in the future. This is an irreversible dynamic that is driven by steadily expanding knowledge in the basic sciences of biology, chemistry, and physics, closely followed by constant practical innovation in applying that knowledge to the development of new tests and therapies.

This ongoing scientific evolution has several practical implications for health insurance and health insurance markets.

First,it is no longer practical or desirable for policymakers to attempt to fight the rising tide of scientific knowledge by trying to restrict health insurance plans to paying only for the limited and ever-shrinking share of medical care that is genuinely unpredictable. Even the more consumer-directed plan designs that limit coverage by requiring subscribers to pay directly for more of their routine care will need to evolve to accommodate this new reality—for example, through mechanisms to ensure that incentives are properly aligned between the care that subscribers purchase directly and the care paid for by the plan—so that the totality of treatment is integrated and produces optimal results. While such plans will continue to attract a share of consumers, they will need to demonstrate in a competitive market that the total proposition offered—the combination of services paid directly by the consumer and services reimbursed by the plan—is a good value compared to other plan designs and produces a combined outcome for the consumer that is as good as or better than that offered by alternative, competing arrangements.

Second,plans will need to become more of the consumer's "expert agent" who works to identify for customers the best providers and treatment options available at the best prices. Some current business practices, such as negotiating provider contracts based mainly on price and then steering patients to those providers, will not compete adequately in a value-maximizing market.[6] Instead, plans will need to develop new strategies. For example, they might cover all providers in a given market but vary patient co-pays according to an analysis, which the plan makes available to its subscribers, of which providers offer the best results at the best prices. Pharmacy benefit managers have already pioneered such a business strategy in the form of tiered co-pays for different competing drugs.

Third,a consumer-centered system will need to curtail some current insurer underwriting practices that exclude, limit, or charge above-standard rates for coverage for certain individuals or certain medical conditions. While these traditional practices will need to be retained in a limited form as penalties against those who wait until they are sick to buy coverage, they cannot be applied when individuals with coverage choose a different plan if the new market is truly consumer-centered. One of the important incentives for purchasing health insurance when an individual is healthy must be the assurance that future changes in health status will not disadvantage the individual when retaining existing coverage or choosing new coverage.[7]

Fourth,as science increasingly makes more medical care more predictable, health plans must recognize that they are increasingly less in the business of cross-subsidizing unpredictable risks and more in the business of cross-subsidizing health status. In this regard, cross-subsidizing health status is not only a horizontal exercise—commonly understood as the healthy paying for the sick—but also a longitudinal one in which a healthy person today will probably be in poorer health at some point in the future or even vice versa.

A competitive, consumer-centered system will force insurers to rethink some of their business practices in this area as well. For example, insurers might experiment with offering features such as multi-year contracting, premium discounts for participation in wellness or disease management programs, or cash rebates to subscribers who successfully meet agreed-upon health improvement goals. These and other novel plan designs can create powerful new incentives for consumers, providers, and insurers to work together to achieve better value by keeping or making consumers healthier at a lower cost.

Fifth,lawmakers must ensure that the market rules in this regard are fair to consumers, while also accommodating the legitimate business concerns of insurers. For example, if consumers are to be able to choose coverage at standard rates regardless of health status, it will be necessary to limit when consumers can make these choices to avoid confusion in the market. For instance, consumers could be limited to choosing or changing coverage only during an annual open season, or for some other fixed period of time, with exceptions for special circumstances such as loss of employment or loss of coverage under a spouse's plan.

Similarly, lawmakers will need to work closely and cooperatively with insurers to devise risk-adjustment mechanisms to give insurers incentives not to avoid subscribers with health problems, but rather to help them get better outcomes at better prices or even to specialize in identifying and organizing cost-effective treatments for patients with specific conditions, such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. The market will need risk-adjustment mechanisms that allow each insurer to accept all customers regardless of their individual health status and that permit all insurers to aggregate a portion of their large claims and equitably redistribute these costs across all consumers in the market.[8]

Conclusion

The current debate over health care reform is usually framed in terms of addressing cost and access problems, accompanied by occasional discussions about the need to improve quality and outcomes in the system. Yet those issues are all manifestations of a more fundamental dissatisfaction with the status quo. Implicitly, both policymakers and the public are motivated by a sense that health care today is not living up to their expectations for value at either the individual level or the societal level.

While America's current health system has clear strengths, it also has significant weaknesses. For all the benefits that it provides in helping people to live longer and healthier lives, America's health care system seems too costly, confusing, inefficient, and uneven in its results, and it leaves too many people without adequate access to its benefits. Fundamentally, Americans as individuals and as a society intuitively recognize that the present health system could do a much better job of delivering value.

Put simply, Americans rightly sense that either they are paying too much for their present health system or the system should be delivering better results given what they are already paying.

The solution and the challenge for policymakers is to undertake the reforms needed to transform the present system into one that does a much better job of rewarding the seeking and creation of better value. As the experience of other economic sectors shows, health care need not be a zero-sum game in which costs can be controlled only by limiting benefits and benefits can be expanded only by increasing costs. Rather, a value-maximizing system will simultaneously demand and reward continuous improvements in benefits while continuously reducing costs.

Such a value-maximizing result can be achieved in health care only if the system is restructured to make the consumer the key decision maker. When individual consumers decide how the money is spent, either directly for medical care or indirectly through their health insurance choices, the incentives will be aligned throughout the system to generate better value—in other words, to produce more for less.

All Americans should be able to agree with the goal of creating a value-maximizing health care system. Consumer-centered health care marketreforms are the only effective means for achieving that goal.

Edmund F. Haislmaier is Senior Research Fellow in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[1] For a concise discussion of why structural change is needed and how to refocus competition on value maximization, see Michael E. Porter and Elizabeth Olmsted Teisberg, "Redefining Competition in Health Care," Harvard Business Review, June 2004. For a longer discussion, see Michael E. Porter and Elizabeth Olmsted Teisberg, Redefining Health Care: Creating Value-Based Competition on Results (Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press, 2006). See also Regina E. Herzlinger, Who Killed Health Care? America's $2 Trillion Medical Problem—and the Consumer-Driven Cure (New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, 2007).

[2] For a concise overview of the German health system, see David G. Green, Ben Irvine, and Ben Cackett, "Health Care in Germany," Civitas, 2005, at www.civitas.org.uk/nhs/germany.php (April 15, 2008).

[3] See Porter and Teisberg, "Redefining Competition in Health Care" and Redefining Health Care: Creating Value-Based Competition on Results.

[4] The value to a worker of the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance is equal to the combined marginal income and payroll tax rates that would be imposed if the compensation were instead paid to the worker as taxable cash income. For a low-wage worker with no federal income tax liability, the tax exclusion is worth 15.3 cents per dollar of health benefits, reflecting the combined employee and employer payroll (FICA) tax rate. Thus, the value of the tax exclusion for that worker is effectively a 15 percent discount on the cost of buying health insurance. For a worker in the 28 percent income tax bracket, the value of the tax exclusion is 43 percent (15 percent payroll tax plus 28 percent federal income tax) and, depending on the applicable state income tax rate, can approach 50 percent when avoidance of state taxes is included.

[5] Examples of such counterproductive regulations include certificate-of-need laws that restrict the availability of medical facilities, technologies, or services; insurance benefit laws that dictate how plans are to pay certain favored health care providers; and laws that unreasonably restrict competition among providers, such as ones that bar the creation of specialty hospitals. For further discussions of these various regulations, see Michael J. New, "The Effect of State Regulations on Health Insurance Premiums: A Revised Analysis," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA06–04, July 25, 2006, at www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/cda06-04.cfm; Ashok Roy, "How Congress Is Killing Competition: The Future of Specialty Hospitals," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1740, December 13, 2007, at www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1740.cfm; U.S. Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice, Improving Health Care: A Dose of Competition, July 2004, at www.justice.gov/atr/public/health_care/204694.htm (April 15, 2008); and Patrick A. Rivers, Myron D. Fottler, and Mustafa Zeedan Younis, "Does Certificate of Need Really Contain Hospital Costs in the United States?" Health Education Journal, Vol. 66, No. 3 (September 2007), pp. 229–244.

[6] See Porter and Teisberg, "Redefining Competition in Health Care" and Redefining Health Care: Creating Value-Based Competition on Results.

Your Excellency President Barrack Obama,

I am very grateful for your speech delivered in the Ghana’s parliament on July 11, 2009 addressing not only the population of Ghana but also all the people of the African continent in general.

As an American of Rwandan origin, I would particularly like to bring to your attention my opinion on the current governance in Rwanda.

In Rwanda there is a vague law outlawing "genocide ideology". This law is written so broadly that it can encompass even the most innocuous comments. As many Rwandans have discovered, disagreeing with the government or making unpopular statements could easily be portrayed as genocide ideology, punishable by sentences of 10 to 25 years. That leaves little political space for dissent.

In Rwanda, there is no meaningful opposition in Rwanda. The press is cowed. Nongovernmental organizations are under attack. When parliamentary elections held last September produced a whopping 92% victory for Kagame's ruling party, evidence collected by the European Union and Rwandan monitors suggested that the government actually inflated the percentage of opposition votes so as to avoid the appearance of an embarrassing Soviet-style acclamation.

Kagame and his western supporters claim that Tutsis and Hutus have been united as “Rwandans” by Kagame which absolutely is not true. Although the Rwandan people are terrorized and severely oppressed they cannot speak up because soldiers and local defense militia are everywhere, on each hill, with a specific mission to silence and/or physically eliminate any potential opponent.

In Rwanda, the monopoly system has made it possibble that most of the wealth be concentrated into a small group of individuals that rule the country, to the expenses of the mass.

In Rwanda, one instrument of repression in Rwanda is the gacaca courts -- informal tribunals run without trained lawyers or judges -- which the government established at the community level to try alleged perpetrators of the genocide. The original impetus was understandable: Rwandan prisons were overpopulated with tens of thousands of alleged genocidaires and no prospect of the country's regular courts trying them within any reasonable time. The gacaca courts provided a quick, if informal, way to resolve these cases. In theory, members of the community would know who had or had not been involved in the genocide, but in reality the lack of involvement by legal professionals has left the proceedings open to manipulation.

Another powerful tool of repression is free and forced labor (modern slavery) that has been institutionalized under the umbrella of TIG works (from a French acronym TIG: Travaux d’Intérêts Généraux or Works of General Interests) which began in 2005 along with the Gacaca courts system. Both Gacaca courts and TIG works together constitute a powerful tool of public repression that went unnoticed by the International Community mostly due to a powerful network composed of some renowned western ideologues that advise Kagame in the commercialization of the Rwandan genocide.

Kagame is often given credit for apparent economic growth in Rwanda. People who blindly give such false statements in order to maintain Kagame on Power should do their homework before making such misleading statements that do neither serve the American interests in region nor genocide survivor’s interests in Rwanda. Poverty is wide spread nationwide and Rwanda’s economic growth per capita has not reached its 1994 level before the Rwandan genocide.

Here is an excerpt from the UNDP, 2008 report on Rwanda: “Although the Rwandan economy depends mainly on agriculture, which supports 80% of the workforce and produces 42% of the GDP, the agricultural sector receives a mere 3% of the national budget, a far cry from the 10% threshold recommended by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Government spending in Rwanda is clearly oriented away from the majority and toward those who will help the government maintain its power”.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Help President Obama Agenda all the way!

Nyagatare — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:01:03 EDT

I noticed that the more we go deep in President Obama agenda, the more we do encounter a stronger resistance, not only from pure Republican machine, but also from some Democrats who still not understand the message of change. We should fight and achieve our objectives in Healthcare, Education, Energy, and keep the economy going. The more we demonstrate our focus, all our opponents will finally believe in our commitment, and it will be difficult to continue their resistance movement.

Nyagatare

Our President, Barack Obama needs our help! Budget!!!

Nyagatare — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:07:16 EDT

This is critical,

Please let help him pass this budget! He needs our help! Washington DC seems to luck that support. Petition letters or talk to our representantives.

Good luck everybody!

Technology, Innovation and Creating

Nyagatare — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 10:21:23 EDT

Technology, Innovation and Creating. Jobs Support Job Creation: Barack Obama believes we need to double federal funding for basic research and make the research and development tax credit permanent to help create high-paying, secure jobs. Obama will also make long-term investments in education, training, and workforce development so that Americans can leverage our strengths – our ingenuity and entrepreneurialism – to create new high-wage jobs and prosper in a world economy.

The Fight is not over friends-Keep it up the struggle!

Nyagatare — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 10:04:42 EDT

The Senate is holding up the budget.

Anybody want to work on this? Then join the Citizen Strategy Think Tank. We will be dividing up the budget, studying it, and making talking points to get this thing passed. Then we will be contacting our Representatives and helping to make it happen. Pass it on...see you there. Look for a thread that says Project Four and jump in.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/CitizenStrategyThinkTank

And please be respectful and helpful. Thank you to all those who are gonna join this work team.

Lisa Lindo
National USA.CAN Group Administrator (Community Action Networks)
Associate Producer Vote For Change Campaign -- http://obeygiant.com/voteforchange/
You Tube: You Made Me Love You, Obama!
Economic URL: IfTheBuckStopsHereShootIt.com
Twitter: lisalindo

http://My.BarackObama.com/page/group/CaliforniaCAN

http://My.BarackObama.com/page/group/USACAN

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/hawaiiCAN

A promise kept

Nyagatare — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:08:48 EST

Typical family would get tax cut in Obama budget

WASHINGTON – A typical American family would get a tax cut under President Barack Obama's budget proposal, and their low-income neighbor would fare even better.

Their wealthier counterparts, however, would face some steep tax increases, starting in 2011.

Families making as much as $50,000 would owe no federal income taxes, as long as they have at least two children, according to an analysis by Deloitte Tax LLP. Others making as much as $150,000 would see big tax cuts, especially if they have children in college.

The budget outline unveiled Thursday continues Obama's policy of targeting tax cuts for middle- and low-income families. In the presidential campaign, Obama promised tax cuts for the middle class, and he delivered some temporary relief in the economic stimulus package enacted this month.

Most of the tax cuts for individuals in the stimulus package would be made permanent in Obama's budget proposal. They would be offset by tax increases on businesses and on couples making more than $250,000. Single filers making more than $200,000 would also be hit with a tax increase.

At the other end of the spectrum, millions of Americans who don't make enough money to pay federal income taxes would receive government payments at tax time through refundable tax credits.

A typical family of four making $50,000 a year would receive a payment of $40, according to the Deloitte analysis. Before the stimulus package was enacted, that same family would have owed $760 in federal income taxes.

A similar family making $35,000 a year would get a payment of $4,100, an increase of $1,200. The median household income was $50,233 in 2007, according to the Census Bureau.

The stimulus package provided most working couples with a new tax credit of up to $800 for 2009 and 2010 — single filers get up to $400. Obama's budget proposal would make the credit permanent for families making less than $190,000 and individuals making less than $95,000.

An expanded $1,000 child tax credit would be made permanent, as would an expanded $2,500 tax credit for college expenses. Families making up to $160,000 a year would be eligible for the full college credit.

Obama "did what he said he would do in the campaign," said Clint Stretch, Deloitte's managing principal of tax policy. "And he had a surprise hit for those on the high end."

Obama promised during the presidential campaign to eliminate tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which was enacted under former President George W. Bush. Obama's budget proposal would allow them to expire in 2011, increasing the top income tax rate for couples making more than $250,000 from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.

The budget proposal also would enact new limits on itemized tax deductions for those same couples, including deductions for charitable donations, mortgage interest and state and local taxes. The tax increases would be delayed until 2011, when the economy will presumably be improved.

The deductions are valuable to millions of Americans — even more so to people in high tax brackets. Without the new limits, a taxpayer in the proposed 39.6 percent tax bracket could save $396 in taxes from a $1,000 reduction in taxable income. Obama wants to limit deductions to the 28 percent bracket, meaning the same taxpayer would save only $280, said Timothy Speiss, a partner at the New York-based accounting firm of Eisner LLP.

Homebuilders and charitable groups have come out against the proposed limits, and even some Democrats in Congress have raised concerns.

Speiss noted that the limits would apply only to high-income families.

"The argument is going to be that it's not terribly dramatic because we're only talking about the top 5 percent of earners," Speiss said.

Under Obama's budget proposal, a typical family of four making $300,000 a year would see their federal income taxes increase by $1,100, while a similar family making $500,000 would get an $11,300 increase, according to the Deloitte analysis. Single filers with no children would be hit with even bigger tax increases.

The analysis took into account typical deductions for families with high incomes, Stretch said.

Obama's budget proposal would provide a long-term fix for the Alternative Minimum Tax, sparing more than 20 million taxpayers from significant tax increases. The tax was enacted 40 years ago to make sure wealthy taxpayers pay at least some tax. But it was never indexed to inflation, so it would hit many middle-income taxpayers without an annual fix by Congress.

Obama's proposal would spare Congress from dealing with it each year, but most taxpayers won't notice the change.

She was a great person!

Nyagatare — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:27:00 EST

Alison des Forges

ARUSHA (AFP) — The court trying alleged perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide was stunned Saturday at the death in an air crash of the top expert on the 1994 massacres, Alison Des Forges.

Des Forges, 66, an expert advisor to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and human rights groups, was among the 50 victims of Thursday's plane crash near Buffalo, New York.

"It is with deep shock that the tribunal has learned of the tragic disappearance of Alison des Forges, "a spokesman for the UN tribunal based in Arusha, Tanzania, told AFP.

"It is a great loss for the world of human rights, international justice and all humanity," Roland Amoussouga said.

"Alison was not only an expert but also a very committed militant," he added." It is a great loss for the world of human rights, international justice and the whole of humanity," he said.

Des Forges appeared as an expert witness in 11 trials for genocide at the ICTR, three trials in Belgium, and at trials in Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Canada.

Her book "No Witness Must Survive" is regarded as the reference work on the Rwandan genocide.

"She was one of the topmost authorities on the history and politics of Rwanda," ICTR prosecutor Hassan Bubacar Jallow said in a statement.

"As a world renowned expert in this field, her knowledge, professionalism and commitment to justice assisted the ICTR and indeed the world at large tremendously -- through her writings, her expert reports and her oral testimony spanning several trials before the tribunal -- acquire a better understanding of the genesis and course of the tragedy of the Rwanda genocide of 1994."

He added, "Dr Des Forges has made an indelible contribution to the cause of international criminal justice and to the cause of human rights."

Des Forges was also a senior adviser to Human Rights Watch, whose boss Kenneth Roth called her "truly wonderful, the epitome of the human rights activist - principled, dispassionate, committed to the truth and to using that truth to protect ordinary people."

"She was among the first to highlight the ethnic tensions that led to the genocide, and when it happened and the world stood by and watched, Alison did everything humanly possible to save people," Roth added.

Historic Speech of Prezident Barack Obama

Nyagatare — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:46:10 EST

Text of President Barack Obama's inaugural address

Text of President Barack Obama's inaugural address on Tuesday, as prepared for delivery and released by the Presidential Inaugural Committee.

OBAMA: My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends — hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed — why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet (it)."

America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

What a delicious dinner!

Nyagatare — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:58:05 EST

2009 Inaugural Luncheon Details Announced

Washington, DC—The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies today announced the details for the 2009 Inaugural Luncheon, which will follow the swearing-in of President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden.

The luncheon, hosted by the members of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, has been a tradition for more than a century. Approximately 200 guests including the new President, Vice President, members of their families, the Supreme Court, Cabinet designees, and members of Congressional leadership will attend the event in Statuary Hall.

The details of the luncheon have been designed to reflect the theme of the 2009 Inaugural ceremonies, "A New Birth of Freedom," which celebrates the bicentennial of the birth of President Abraham Lincoln.

The menu, created by Design Cuisine, a catering company based in Arlington, Virginia, draws on historic ties to the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln. Growing up in the frontier regions of Kentucky and Indiana, the sixteenth President favored simple foods including root vegetables and wild game. As his tastes matured, he became fond of stewed and scalloped oysters. For dessert or a snack, nothing pleased him more than a fresh apple or an apple cake.

The wines to be served during the luncheon were produced by some of the finest winemakers in California, the home state of Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Each wine was selected to complement the flavors of the luncheon ingredients.

The 2009 Inaugural Luncheon Menu First Course

Seafood Stew
Duckhorn Vineyards, 2007 Sauvignon Blanc, Napa Valley

Second Course

A Brace of American Birds (pheasant and duck), served with Sour Cherry Chutney and Molasses Sweet Potatoes
Goldeneye, 2005 Pinot Noir, Anderson Valley

Third Course

Apple Cinnamon Sponge Cake and Sweet Cream Glacé
Korbel Natural “Special Inaugural Cuvée,” California Champagne

The first course will be served on replicas of the china from the Lincoln Presidency, which was selected by Mary Todd Lincoln at the beginning of her husband's term in office. The china features the American bald eagle standing above the U.S. Coat of Arms, surrounded by a wide border of "solferino," a purple-red hue popular among the fashionable hosts of the day.

The floral arrangements, designed by JLB Floral of Alexandria, Virginia, will feature hydrangeas in shades of purple and blue, Hot Mojolica spray roses, bright Red Charlotte roses and light blue Delphinium in a footed brass compote. After the luncheon, the floral arrangements will be given to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

The backdrop for the luncheon will be a painting, chosen for occasion, and borrowed from the New-York Historical Society. The painting, "View of the Yosemite Valley," by Thomas Hill, reflects the majestic landscape of the American West and the dawn of a new era. The subject of the painting, Yosemite Valley, represents an important but often overlooked event from Lincoln's presidency -- his signing of the 1864 Yosemite Grant, which set aside Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias as a public reserve.

During the Inaugural Luncheon it is traditional for the President and Vice President to be presented with gifts by the Congress on behalf of the American people. The President and Vice President will each be presented with a framed official photograph taken of their swearing-in ceremony by a Senate photographer, as well as flags flown over the U.S. Capitol during the inaugural ceremonies.

The President and Vice President will also receive one-of-a-kind engraved crystal bowls, created by the Lenox Company of Bristol, Pennsylvania. President Obama will receive a bowl depicting the White House on a crystal base inscribed with “Barack H. Obama, The Presidential Inauguration, January 20, 2009.” Vice President Biden will receive a bowl depicting the United States Capitol, on a crystal base inscribed with “Joseph R. Biden Jr. , The Vice Presidential Inauguration, January 20, 2009.” The bowls were designed by Timothy Carder and hand-cut by master glass-cutter Peter O’Rourke.

Each guest at the Inaugural Luncheon will receive a crystal vase etched with a depiction of the U.S. Capitol, designed by Paula Skene, an artist in Emeryville, California, and handcrafted by Evergreen Crystal of Montrose, Colorado.

The Smithsonian Chamber Players, who are artists in residence at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, will provide music for the Inaugural Luncheon. The ensemble, directed by cellist Kenneth Slowik, is renowned for its performances of period music on the musical instruments in the Smithsonian’s collection.

Members of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies are Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chairman; Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee Bob Bennett; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi; House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer; and House Minority Leader John Boehner.

For more information on the Inaugural Luncheon, including recipes for the luncheon menu, and images of the painting "View of the Yosemite Valley," the Lincoln Presidential china, the floral arrangements and the official gifts, visit http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/luncheon.

###

You subscribed to the JCCIC email list at http://inaugural.senate.gov to receive important updates and information about the January 20, 2009 swearing-in ceremony, updates about the website, or press materials about the Inauguration. The JCCIC is committed to responsible information handling and will respect your privacy. We will not share your email address or other contact information. You may opt-out of electronic communication with us at any time.

Unsubscribe valensny@yahoo.com from this list.

Our mailing address is:
Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural CeremoniesRussell Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510
Our telephone:202-224-2228Add us to your address book

Go to change.gov and ask Obama Administration questions

Nyagatare — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:07:30 EST

Typical questions asked by Rwandan Americans

"President Paul Kagame of Rwanda has a plan for the United States, does the Obama-Biden Administration have a plan for Rwanda?"Thierry, San Francisco, CA  - Foreign Policy View response
Post a response
This submission was flagged because people believe it is inappropriate. Learn more    Flagged Flag as inappropriate Remove
"My question to you Mr. President is: will you seek U. N. sanctions against Paul Kagame and company, for their envolvement in the war in eastern Congo as you would do in the case of any other brutal leaders such as Bin laden and the talibans?"le patriarche, Gaithersburg,Maryland  - Foreign Policy View response
Post a response
This submission was flagged because people believe it is inappropriate. Learn more    Flagged Flag as inappropriate Remove
"The U.S. should pressure Kagame for an inter-Rwandan dialogue between his gvt and the Hutu based in eastern Congo and resolve the long-standing tension. Until U.S. shows greater resolve in engaging Congo, Rwanda and Uganda, there will be no peace."ME, Irving, TX  - Economy View response
Post a response
This submission was flagged because people believe it is inappropriate. Learn more    Flagged Flag as inappropriate Remove
"Mr. President, what change will you bring about to stop the killings of innocent civilian populations in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo perpetrated by mr. Laurent Nkunda with the blessing of the murderous regime of Paul Kagame of Rwanda?"bonish, DC  - Foreign Policy

What did she do to be banned in Rwanda?

Nyagatare — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:45:46 EST

Hirondelle News Agency (Lausanne)

Rwanda: Kigali Admits to Have Barred Human Rights Champion Dr. Des Forges From Entering

The Rwandan government has admitted to have barred Human Rights Watch's Senior Adviser on Africa, Dr Alison Des Forges, from entering Rwanda as " an individual case", but did not state categorically for what reasons.

The pro-government Rwanda Times quoted Rwanda's Director of Immigration and Emigration, Mr Anaclet Kalibata, as saying that Dr Des Forges case was "personal problem" and that it was different from making her organization's human right's work in Rwanda difficult. "It is true that we have barred her from entering, but it is an immigration issue... it has nothing to do with human rights, it is an individual case" claimed Mr Kalibata.

Kalibata added that Human Rights Watch has an office in Kigali that was still operating, which was a testimony that Rwanda has no problem with the organization's activities.

The Human Rights Watch last week called on the Rwandan government to reverse its decision over Dr Des Forges.

"Des Forges, who has been working to promote human rights in Rwanda for 17 years, won the prestigious MacArthur Award for her reporting on1994 genocide" wrote HRW. Dr Des Forges was author of a book titled: "Leave None to Tell the Story".

"A nation like Rwanda, which has seen such deadly violations of human rights, should show the world that it welcomes review of its record," said Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch.

"We've asked Rwandan authorities why they have excluded this highly respected human rights advocate but haven't gotten any official response. Unofficially the only explanation we have been given is that they don't like our criticism."

The Rwandan government first refused Dr Des Forges entry at a border crossing with Burundi on September 4, 2008. She was refused a second time on December 2, when she flew to Rwanda to attend an international conference on legal aid for poor. On that occasion, Rwandan officials prevented her from leaving the plane and which forced her to return to Belgium.

On December 3, the Rwandan authorities delayed for a day another Human Rights Watch staff member at Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), border crossing. However, finally she received permission to enter Rwanda in the evening.

In addition to monitoring human rights, the US-based body has worked to see justice delivered on behalf of victims of 1994 genocide and of war crimes and crimes against humanity, which according to UN estimates ,claimed lives of about 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus.

Dr Des Forges has provided expert testimony in 11 genocide trials before the Arusha-based International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), including that of Col. Theoneste Bagosora and two others found guilty on December 18. She has testified also in genocide trials in Belgium, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Canada.

On several occasions, most recently on December 12, Human Rights Watch called on ICTR Prosecutor to ensure it carried out its full mandate by examining alleged cases against the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), dominant force in the current Rwandan government.

In the past, staff members of other international organizations, journalists, and academic specialists thought to be critical of the government, have also been refused permission to enter or work in Rwanda.

Are All American Citizens Informed What is Going on in Iran or the Whole Middle East?

Nyagatare — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:21:02 EST

Published on Saturday, December 27, 2008 by CommonDreams.org Iranians Ponder Future U.S.-Iranian Relations in an Obama Administration

by Ann Wright

Travelling to Iran as a Citizen Diplomat for Peace

Just a month ago, while Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and U.S. President Bush met for the last time as heads of state in late November, 2008 in Washington and continued their relentless bellicose rhetoric toward Iran, I and three activists from the United States were in Iran as citizen diplomats talking with Iranians on their views of a new American presidential administration and their hopes for their country.

We went to Iran with no illusions. We knew well the history of United States involvement in Iran. We knew of Iranian support for organizations U.S. administrations have labeled as "terrorist" groups. And we were very familiar with international concerns about Iran's nuclear enrichment program and human rights record.

We wanted to talk with members of the Iranian government as well as with ordinary Iranians. We ended up meeting with officials in the President's office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and with two women members of the Iranian Parliament (Majles). We also spoke with businesspersons, members of nongovernmental organizations, writers, filmmakers and university students and faculty.

Writing about the concerns of the Iranians we met leaves one open to comments of being one-sided, not speaking with enough Iranians to provide the "real" voices and of picking and choosing voices to record. I acknowledge the possible criticism in advance, but believe our discussions are worthy of presentation to those who have not been so fortunate to have travelled to Iran to see and hear for themselves. So here goes.

Iranians Want Peace Not War

Codepink Women for Peace co-founders Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamin, Fellowship of Reconciliation Iran program director Laila Zand and I were reminded in virtually every conversation that Iranians want peace with the United States, not war. Not one person in Iran told us that first, she believed her country would begin a war with the United States, or any other country to include Israel, and second, that if the United States initiated military actions against Iran, that those actions would resolve problems in Iran or with the United States.

They reminded us that, unlike the United States that has invaded and occupied Iran's neighbors Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran has not attacked any country in the last 200 years. They reminded us that Iran was the victim of an eight year war in the 1980s when Iraq invaded Iran and in which the United States and European countries provided Iraq with military equipment, intelligence and chemical weapons that were used at least 50 times against Iranian civilians and military forces. We learned that during the eight year war the Revolution's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini had mandated that it would be against Islamic precepts to bomb Iraqi cities or use chemical or unconventional weapons on Iraq-and Iranian military forces complied-even though the Iraqi military bombed Iranian cities including Tehran and used chemical weapons on Iranians.

Most Iranians Have Issues With Their Government, As Most Americans Have Issues With Theirs

Iran is a county with a population of about 70 million (two and one-half times as many people as Iraq) and a geographic area about the size of Alaska (four times as large as Iraq). Tehran, the Iranian capital, has 7.5 million people in the urban area and 15 million in surrounding areas. It is a modern city, with a beautiful subway, cosmopolitan shops, as well as a huge traditional bazaar and an incredible number of cars, trucks and motorcycles. Tehran and Iran have recovered from the Iraq war that ended 20 years ago and are holding up remarkably well to U.S. and international sanctions.

Most Iranians with whom we talked openly said they have issues with many aspects of their government. Many said the Iranian people share a common dislike with Americans--dislike of their governments, noting that President Bush's and the U.S. Congress's approval ratings with the American people are extremely low, as is Iranian President Ahmadinejad's ratings, particularly in urban areas. But, they strongly said they do not want outside interference in the internal political events of their country and definitely do not want a political system and government installed by invasion and occupation. Their democracy, even with its flaws, is better than a U.S. enforced democracy, they said.

America's best policy would be to treat Iran with respect and not with threats of military action. Any attempt to overthrow the Iranian government would be met with stiff opposition, even from those who don't like the government, they repeated. "Regime change" will come in due time and in an Iranian manner.

U.S. Interference in Iran's Internal Affairs

Several reminded us that in January, 1981 the United States signed the Algiers Accord, in which the U.S. agreed "not to intervene directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in the Iran's internal affairs." The Algiers Accord was the agreement signed by the United States and Iran to end the 444 day US Embassy hostage crisis. (www.parstimes.com/history/algiers_accords.pdf)

However, this Accord has been violated numerous times by the United States. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh wrote that, in late 2007, President Bush requested and received from Democratic Congressional leadership $400 million reprogrammed from previous authorizations to fund a Presidential Finding that substantially increased covert activities designed to destabilize Iran's religious leadership. These covert actions involved support for the Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. Hersh also revealed that United States Special Operations Forces had been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since 2007, including seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of "high-value targets" who could be captured or killed. Hersh said operations by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) were significantly expanded in 2007 by this authorization. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh).

Iran's Nuclear Program

Iran has had a nuclear program for almost 50 years, having purchased a research reactor from the United States in 1959, during the Shah's reign. The Iranian government states that its nuclear energy program will allow increased electricity generation to reduce consumption of gas and oil to allow export of more of its fossil fuels. The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) made public December 3, 2007 concluded with "high confidence" that the military-run Iranian nuclear weapons program had been shut down in 2003, but that Iran's enrichment program could still provide enough enriched uranium to produce a nuclear weapon by the middle of the next decade, a timeframe unchanged from previous estimates. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?hp)

Virtually everyone with whom we spoke said they believe that their country has a right to have a nuclear enrichment program and to produce nuclear energy. Many questioned why Iran would ever need a nuclear weapons program, unless as leverage against the United States' 30 year antagonism toward their country. They reminded us that Iran is a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (unlike nuclear-states Israel, India and Pakistan that refused to join the NPT and developed nuclear weapons purposefully outside the treaty.) Additionally, they insist that Iran is in compliance with the IAEA standards according to the November, 2008 IAEA report, despite the interpretations of the report by the United States and Israel.

Some reminded us that on August 9, 2005, at the IAEA meeting in Vienna, 60 years after the US atomic bombing of Japan, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei announced that he had issued a fatwa, or religious mandate, forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. Importantly, the Supreme Leader controls the Iranian military and the nuclear program of Iran, not the President of the country, Mr. Ahmadinejad. (http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=302258)

Iran, Israel and the United States

Iran, Israel and United States have had a disturbing, but fascinating, history over the past 30 years. Iran's current relationship with Israel and Western countries seems to be defined by President Ahmadinejad's October, 2005 widely reported, but tragically and dangerously mistranslated and misinterpreted, statement that "Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth." According to highly respected Middle Eastern scholar Juan Coles, Ahmadinejad was "not making a threat, but was quoting a saying of Ayatollah Khomeini that urged pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people." (http://www.themiddleeastnow.com/wipedoffthemap.html)

But the history of Iranian-Israeli relationships is more than just Ahmadinejad's misinterpreted statement. Israel, like the United States, had a long history of selling arms to the Shah, which Iran's revolutionary government was willing to exploit secretly, despite its public animosity toward the state of Israel. In the early years (1980-82) of the Iranian Revolution and during the war with Iraq, Ayatollah Khomeini's government sold oil to Israel in exchange for weapons and spare parts. Even during the American hostage crisis (1979-1981) in which 52 U.S. diplomats were held for 444 days, Israel made weapons deals with Iran. Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State Alexander Haig gave permission to Israel to sell U.S.-made military spare parts for fighter planes to Iran in early 1981.

In another remarkable relationship known as the Iran-Contra affair, funds from the sale to Iran of U.S. weapons by Israel in 1985-1986 were used by U.S. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, National Security Advisor Admiral John Poindexter, National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane (President Reagan's first NSA) and National Security Council staffer U.S. Marine Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North to fund the Contras' war against the revolutionary government in Nicaragua. This was in violation of a Congressional ban on funding the Contras and took place during the Iraq-Iran war when the U.S. was also providing military equipment including chemical weapons to Iraq, Iran's opponent in the war. Iranians remember that those convicted for their actions including Weinberger, Poindexter, McFarlane and North, were pardoned by President George H.W. Bush who was Vice-President during the period of criminal actions conducted by government officials during the illegal Contra Affair.

Iranian Support for Hamas and Hezbollah

When asked about one of the most contentious points in U.S.-Israeli-Iranian relationships, the Iranian government's support for Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, Iranians pointed out that the U.S. has consistently and heavily funded Israel during its 62-year existence (U.S. provides about $4 billion per year to the Israeli government and the Israeli Defense Forces.) Many Iranians suggested that Palestinians who have lived in refugee camps during those 62 years must be provided assistance. Hezbollah began in 1982 as a small militia fighting against the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and is now not only a military group but a political organization that won seats in the Lebanese government, has a radio and satellite television-station and provides social development and humanitarian assistance for much of southern Lebanon. Iranians strongly felt that Hamas, the elected (and they emphasize elected) government of Gaza, needs financial support, particularly now in current extraordinary humanitarian crisis due to the lengthy Israeli blockade of foods and services into Gaza.

Iraq

On the question of Iraq, many Iranians who lived in the border regions with Iraq during the eight year war, said they personally knew the agony of deaths, injuries, destruction and other costs of war and do not wish that on their former enemies. They talked of the irony of the political outcome of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq in which many Shi'a Iraqis, who lived in exile in Iran during Saddam's regime and have long standing ties to the Iranian government, are now in leadership positions in the new U.S. backed Iraqi government.

Afghanistan

Other Iranians reminded us of Iran's help to the U.S. in 2001 and 2002 in the early days of the U.S. military action in Afghanistan. When we asked about recent United States intelligence analysis that indicated Iranian support for the Taliban, we were met with laughs. The Taliban are of the Sunni branch of Islam while the Iranians are of the Shi'a branch. They reminded us that in 1998 the Taliban murdered 11 Iranian diplomats and one Iranian newsperson at the Iranian consulate in Afghan northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, an incident which Iranians have not forgotten. The Iranians consider the Taliban their adversaries and feel that a Taliban government in Afghanistan would make the region more unstable.

Sanctions are Drying Up Lines of Credit for Businesses

We found that Iranians are proud of their creativity to outwit the 29 years of various sanctions the U.S. has placed on their country. They say the U.S. has only isolated itself commercially by its sanctions as Iran trades with many other nations. The Europeans, Chinese, Russians and Indians have had flourishing businesses with Iran. However, the recent international sanctions clampdown on lines of credit for Iranian banks has had a rippling effect into the business community, where money for loans to Iranian businesses for purchase of materials is drying up. Oil dollars that paid for an incredible amount of imports are drying up with the downturn in oil prices, and the government is beginning to reevaluate the large subsidizes given to the population for food, gasoline and services.

We spoke with four businesswomen (an architect, a chemist, a business consultant and an agricultural professional) who said each of their businesses had been affected negatively with the shrinking of money available for purchase of materials from outside the country and for continuation of current levels of operation or expansion of their business.

One of the most of incredible stories we heard about the effect of the sanctions was on the alternative energy sector. Since there is so much rhetoric in the U.S. about the dangers of the Iranian nuclear program, we decided to see if there were alternative energy companies in the country. On the aircraft flying into Iran, we met a European businessman who said he would put us in touch with the director of a wind energy company. He introduced us by telephone to the director of Saba Niroo, an Iranian company that makes wind turbines and is the largest regional wind power manufacturer (http://www.sabaniroo.co.ir/eng/index.asp). We met with the director and staff at the modern, state of the art, factory, in south Tehran. Saba Niroo has installed some of the 143 wind turbines planned for the wind farm in Manjil, Guillan province and the 43 wind turbines planned for the Binalood wind farm in Khorasan Razavi province. They have installed 4 wind turbines in the Pushkin Pass wind farm in Armenia.

However, the director told us that because of U.S. sanctions pressure, Vestas, a Danish wind energy company (http://www.vestas.com/) with whom the Iranian company has had a contractual relationship, has now refused to honor its 15 year contract to furnish critical parts for the wind turbines.

As a result, Saba Niroo has 50 huge, 70 foot long wind blades and corresponding chassis and installation towers lying useless in its warehouse and warehouse yard. Saba Niroo may go bankrupt in six months if it is unable to complete and sell the wind turbines-all because of U.S. sanctions and pressure.

As a part of citizen diplomacy, we decided to defy sanctions and show our support of alternative energy programs, by purchasing shares in Saba Niroo. We have also decided to purchase shares in the Danish company Vestas, which has a big U.S. headquarters in Portland, Oregon. As shareholders, we could put shareholder pressure on Vestas to honor its contract with the Iranian company.

Join the campaign "Winds for Change" to support for alternative energy and for sanctions breaking and purchase a shares with us. (http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2008/12/12-5)

Human Rights in Iran

On the question of human rights in Iran, executions, political prisoners, rights of gays and lesbians, many Iranians strongly want changes in their government's policies. In response to a question in September, 24, 2007 from an audience at Columbia University in New York, President Ahmadinejad drew widespread criticism when his answer was translated as "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals in our country , we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who told you that we have it." In October, 2007, one of Ahmadinejad's media advisor's said that the President had meant that "compared to American society, we don't have many homosexuals--In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/world/middleeast/11iran.html?_r=1

Homosexual acts are punishable by law: sodomy (defined as "sexual intercourse with a male) is punishable by execution and punishment for "lesbian acts" is 100 lashes. However, conviction takes the testimony of four witnesses and if the accused recants before witnesses testify, the reportedly accused will not be punished. The discussion of human rights of youth and gay youth combined in the much publicized 2005 execution by hanging of two young men in Iran. Some say they were executed because they were solely because they were gay and others say the two young men, minors, were convicted and hanged because they criminally sexually assaulted another youth. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071902061.html)

Interestingly, sex change is legal in Iran and there are more sex change operations in Iran than any other country except Thailand. The Iranian government provides grants up to $4500 for the operation and further funding for hormone therapy on the theory that persons wanting a sex change have a "treatable disorder."

Iranians want change to come from within their society, not imposed by another government, especially one, as we were reminded, that has its own human rights issues, including incarceration of the highest percentage of its citizenry of any country in the world, high rates of execution (Texas in particular), state-sponsored kidnapping from other countries (known in the Bush administration as extraordinary rendition) , imprisonment without due process, extrajudicial courts and a military and an intelligence agency that are notorious for torture.

Women's Issues

When thinking of women in Iran, many in the West immediately respond with comments about the clothing women must wear. Few realize that 70% of all university students are women, 30% of doctors in Iran are women, 80% of women are literate (88% of men can read), women receive 90 days of maternity leave at 2/3rd pay and right to return to her job, and the number of children per woman has declined from 7 in 1979 to 1.7 now. Abortions are illegal in Iran, but it's the only country I know of were couples must take a class on modern contraception before being issued a marriage license. It has the only state-supported condom factory in the Middle East and it produces 45 million condoms a year in 30 different colors, shapes and flavors.

In one of the most successful instances of women's grassroots organizational pressure on the government, in September, 2008, over 100 advocates for women's rights successfully lobbied against proposed changes to marriage laws which were detrimental to women and forced the Iranian Parliament to drop the regressive amendments.

Clothing Restrictions

Yes, there are mandatory clothing rules for women, including wearing a scarf and clothing that covers the arms to the wrists and legs to the ankles, and they are cited by Western women as a form of human rights concern. In fact, as our aircraft arrived at the Tehran International Airport terminal, the aircraft crew announced "By the law of the country of Iran, women cannot leave the aircraft without a scarf on their heads-and there will be an Iranian official outside the aircraft to return women who are not properly covered." While some Iranian women say wearing the scarf is burdensome, others are comfortable with the dress code. In any case, clothing restrictions are not the main focus of women's rights advocates. Rights to custody of children and property after divorce, right to education and health care are more important than mandatory wearing of a scarf.

In the Month Since Our Visit

Sparks Fly Over Iranian President's BBC Christmas message-- "Jesus Christ Would Stand Up to Bullying, Ill-Tempered and Expansionist Powers"

In what they surely knew would be a very controversial request, the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) asked Iranian President Ahmadinejad to deliver the BBC channel 4's traditional "alternative Christmas message" to the Queen's Christmas address.

The head of BBC News and Current Affairs said the decision to ask President Ahmadinejad was because "As the leader of one of the most powerful states in the Middle East, President Ahmadinejad's views are enormously influential. As we approach a critical time in international relations, we are offering our viewers an insight into an alternative world view. Channel 4's role is to allow viewers to hear directly from people of world importance with sufficient context to enable them to make up their own minds." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7799652.stm)

It turned out that Ahmadinejad's short, 36 second message in Farsi with English subtitles broadcast on Christmas Day, 2008, probably resonated with much of the world, but predictably provoked a British government hornet's nest with his comment that if Jesus Christ lived today he would stand up against bullying powers. "If Christ were on earth today, undoubtedly he would stand with the people in opposition to bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers." Ahmadinejad, a devout Muslim, criticized the "indifference of some governments and powers" towards the teachings of the "divine prophets, including Jesus Christ" and said that "the general will of nations" was for a return to "human values". "The crises in society, the family, morality, politics, security and the economy ... have come about because the prophets have been forgotten, the Almighty has been forgotten and some leaders are estranged from God."

Ahmadinejad's remarks received very little media coverage in the United States, miniscule when compared to the news story of the month-- President Bush's encounter with the Iraq shoe thrower. However, a spokeswoman for the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office in predicting anticipated Bush administration displeasure said: "President Ahmadinejad has during his time in office made a series of appalling anti-Semitic statements. The British media are rightly free to make their own editorial choices, but this invitation will cause offence and bemusement not just at home but amongst friendly countries abroad."

Labor Member of Parliament (MP) Louise Ellman, chairwoman of the Labor Jewish Movement, said: "I condemn Channel 4's decision to give an unchallenged platform to a dangerous fanatic who denies the Holocaust, while preparing for another, and claims homosexuality does not exist while his regime hangs gay young men from cranes in the street. Conservative MP Mark Pritchard, a member of the Commons all-party media group, said: "Channel 4 has given a platform to a man who wants to annihilate Israel and continues to persecute Christians at Christmas time. "

Media Relations Not a Strong Suit of the Iranian Government

It's almost as if the Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who is up for election in the summer, 2009, has hired lame-ducks U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Olmert as his foreign policy, national security and media consultants. How else could the Iranian government have come up with so many incidents in the past weeks that give ammunition to those in the United States and Israel who do not want dialogue with Iran on nuclear and regional security issues, who want human rights issues to publicize and who wish ill to the Iranian government and people?

For example, on December 22, 2008, the Iranian government closed down two human rights organizations headed by 2005 Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi. The government accused the organization of carrying out illegal activities, such as publishing statements, writing letters to international organizations, and holding news conferences. The Center for Participation in Clearing Mine Areas helps victims of landmines in Iran and Defenders of Human Rights Center reports human rights violations in Iran, defends political prisoners, and supports families of those prisoners. Ebadi was also taken into police custody briefly following the raids.

And the first week in December, 2008, in a campaign against Western cultural influence in Iran, Qaemshahr city police arrested 49 people during a crackdown on "satanic" fashions and unsuitable clothing and closed five barbershops for "promoting Western hairstyles." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/3548370/Iran-arrests-49-for-wearing-satanic-clothing.html)

And now, there is the predictable increased international criticism about the Russian government providing the Iranian government with S300s, anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense systems, triggered by the Bush administration's decision to put a "missile shield" in Poland and the Czech Republic. On December 23, 2008 United Press International (UPI) reported that the Russian government had begun delivery to the Iranian government of some of its most modern anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense systems, the S-300s. These missile systems can shoot down ballistic missiles and aircraft at low and high altitudes as far away as 100 miles. Iran conducted well-publicized air force and ballistic missile defense exercises in September, 2008.

The Bush administration's ballistic poke in the eye of Russia and Iran by the deployment of ballistic missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic "to protect against attacks from rogue states" (http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2008/space-081115-rianovosti01.htm is perceived by many Iranians as a strategy to ensure that tensions in the region continue to escalate. The United States is planning to deploy 10 Ground-based Mid-course Interceptors in Poland and batteries of shorter-range Patriot PAC-3 anti-ballistic missiles to protect the Interceptors.

Iranians Not Optimistic About Future Relations with the United States Under an Obama Administration

Despite President-elect Obama's comments during the Presidential campaign that he would have dialogue with the Iranian government without preconditions, many Iranians with whom we spoke are not optimistic that there will be meaningful change in U.S. policy during an Obama administration. Citing appointments of former Israeli Defense Force member and US Congressman Rahm Emanuel, as Chief of Staff, Hillary Clinton, who during the summer campaign said she would "obliterate" Iran if Iran used nuclear weapons against Israel (a statement that Iranians find incomprehensible since it is Israel that has nuclear weapons, not Iran, and Israel continues to threaten Iran), and Dennis Ross, the Middle East negotiator during the Clinton and Bush administrations, Iranians said they hoped the AIPAC lobby in the United States had not already determined Obama's agenda toward Iran.

Iranians Want Peace

To emphasize again, the overwhelming comment from Iranians during our visit was that they want peace with the United States. They hope that the new President of the United States will talk with their government to resolve issues, instead of resorting to the threat, much less, the use of military action.

Our Future with Iran - A Hope for Diplomacy Not Military Action

As we have seen from the American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the use of our military to resolve security issues kills and injures innocent civilians, destroys cities and villages, creates more people who dislike/hate our country and who may be willing to use violence against us, and jeopardizes, not enhances, the security of the United States.

As a retired US Army Colonel and a former US diplomat, I hope that the Obama administration will throw away the old template of 30 years of crisis, threats of military action, vindictiveness and retaliation and look to diplomacy to develop a peaceful future with Iran!

Ann Wright is a 29 year US Army/Army Reserves veteran who retired as a Colonel and a former US diplomat who resigned in March, 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq. She served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. In December, 2001 she was on the small team that reopened the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. She is the co-author of the book "Dissent: Voices of Conscience." (www.voicesofconscience.com)

Anything about Rwanda after 1994-Why not 1990

Nyagatare — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:44:18 EST

Please copy this link in your browser-Enjoy-Don't depress too much!

http://www.massviolence.org/Rwanda-The-State-of-Research?artpage=8-12

UN Politics

Nyagatare — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:42:25 EST

Published on Thursday, December 11, 2008 by Inter Press Service Politics Still Reign Over Principles at UN

by Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS - The United Nations Wednesday commemorated the 60th anniversary of the landmark Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) against the backdrop of widespread political repression -- most notably in Zimbabwe, Sudan, Burma (Myanmar), Iraq, Afghanistan and in the Israeli-occupied territories of West Bank and Gaza.

But a sharply divided Security Council has remained politically impotent against continued atrocities worldwide, in violation of humanitarian law and international conventions, including the UDHR.

Andrew Hudson, a senior associate with the Human Rights Defenders Programme at Human Rights First, singled out U.N. member states, primarily Security Council members, "who have frequently failed to prevent or address gross violations of the UDHR."

The United Nations, he said, should redouble its efforts to demonstrate that the human rights contained in the UDHR are universal and allow for translation into specific local contexts.

"The new Universal Periodic Review mechanism at the Human Rights Council demonstrates that the UDHR applies universally to all states," he stressed.

The U.N. human rights system should engage in objective, impartial and universal evaluation of the human rights records of all states, Hudson told IPS.

More recently, at a political level, the Security Council has remained deadlocked because of the partisan role of the five veto-wielding permanent members.

The United States, France and Britain have continued to protect Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan while Russia and China continue to shield Zimbabwe, Sudan and Burma (Myanmar) against any strictures or sanctions for human rights violations.

Article 1 of the UDHR, which was adopted by the General Assembly on Dec. 10, 1948, states that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

But in reality human rights abuses are increasingly becoming the norm in most developing nations. And in developed countries, including the United States and Britain, violations are being justified in the name of fighting terrorism.

Speaking at a ceremony to mark the 60th anniversary of the UDHR on Wednesday, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said: "We see human trafficking, the exploitation of children, and a host of other ills plaguing millions of people," he added.

The "host of other ills", according to human rights organisations, includes torture, disappearances, extra-judicial killings, arbitrary detention, surveillance, defamation and administrative and judicial harassment. The victims also include journalists and human rights defenders.

Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, told reporters that tens of millions of people around the world are still unaware that they have rights that they can demand, and that their governments are accountable to them, to a wide-ranging body of rights-based national and international law.

"Despite all our efforts over the past 60 years, this anniversary will pass many people by, and it is essential that we keep up the momentum, thereby enabling more and more people to stand up and claim their rights," she added.

Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the San Francisco-based Oakland Institute, pointed out the failure of nation states and governments in fulfilling their obligation to ensure human rights for all.

For instance, she said, in the United States, where homelessness, hunger and poverty -- particularly among children and seniors -- abound, it is the failure of the government to fulfill its obligation to its people.

"The United Nations could have done more in terms of emphasising the relevance of human rights treaties, insisting on these treaties taking precedence over, say, trade agreements or other social economic policies that might conflict with human rights of people," Mittal told IPS.

Asked where the United Nations has succeeded or failed in helping implement the UDHR, Julie Gromellon of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) told IPS the objective of the founders of the U.N. to add a human dimension to international law through the UDHR has become a reality.

She said international law, and especially the UDHR, has become an important tool to promote respect for and observance of human rights.

The Universal Declaration has also served as a starting point for further standard-setting activities through eight core human rights conventions, whose implementation is monitored by so-called treaty bodies, a more advanced system of supervision.

In this framework, the United Nations has contributed to the recognition of the accountability of all states for compliance with their human rights obligations as laid down in the UDHR, she added.

But important lacunae need to be filled to implement the UDHR. States should be continuously urged by the U.N. to ratify all relevant international human rights treaties and to accept and implement the supervisory procedures.

In particular, they should be urged to ratify the relevant individual complaint procedures, Gromellon added.

She also said the crucial role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) should be recognised by the U.N. "They have contributed in a most significant way to the development and enforcement of the international human rights system," she noted.

And such organisations should also be given a consultative status with other organisations, including the international financial institutions and the World Trade Organisation.

Rob Wheeler of the World Alliance for Transforming the U.N. said the United Nations, in failing to ensure that all people's rights are met, is actually violating several articles of its own founding Charter.

"We thus urge the United Nations to organise and hold a U.N. Charter Review Conference, under Article 109 of the Charter, in order to determine what can and must be done to ensure that the charter is upheld and that all people's most basic human rights are indeed provided and met," he said.

Unfortunately, he said, most of the provisions included in the Universal Declaration have still not been met even after 60 years -- 830 million people still do not have enough food to eat, 1.1 billion lack access to clean water, 2.6 billion to basic sanitation, and 2.0 billion to essential drugs.

Hudson of Human Rights First said that the United Nations, especially the High Commissioner for Human Rights, has played a critical role in education, outreach and awareness-raising about the universality of the UDHR.

"However, U.N. member states fail to implement aspects of the UDHR by suggesting that human rights do not acknowledge cultural difference -- a specious argument used to avoid human rights scrutiny," Hudson told IPS.

Ethics Are Key to Trust and Integrity-Even in IT Business

Nyagatare — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:49:05 EST

A Question of Ethics

Doing business online brings into sharp focus ethical questions about privacy, employee monitoring, and sharing data in supply chains. Are IT professionals prepared to respond?

By Clinton Wilder (cwilder@cmp.com) and John Soat (jsoat@cmp.com)

ne afternoon last fall, Lockheed Martin corp. senior financial analyst Susan Watershoot opened an E-mail attachment and knew immediately that she was looking at information she wasn't supposed to see. In a template from a Lockheed Martin competitor that should have been blank, the competitor had mistakenly included proprietary rate calculations for a federal government contract on which Lockheed Martin was a subcontractor.

Waterschoot, who also acts as database administrator in the company's radar systems unit in Syracuse, N.Y., immediately alerted her boss and the unit's legal counsel. But there was one other department that had to be notified--and fast. Waterschoot knew that if the document was still on the company's Microsoft Mail server after 5 p.m., it would be backed up overnight and archived on tape, making it potentially recoverable by other employees. Furthermore, the server is shared by the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, and other subcontractors, exposing the confidential data to even more potential competitors. Waterschoot and the legal counsel worked with their colleagues in IT to remove the document from the server and back it up onto a diskette, which they returned to the competitor. "I just tried to do the right thing," she says.

As E-business moves more and more business processes and transactions online, Waterschoot's experience is a telling example of how information technology, and the people who manage it, are at the forefront of decisions with ethical implications. The debate over ethical standards in business isn't new. What is new, or at least more apparent than ever, is IT's central role in some of the most important business-ethic issues of the day: privacy, the ownership of personal data, and the obligations created by extended E-business partnerships. How have these controversies affected IT managers and others involved with technology? What ethical issues, if any, are business executives grappling with in connection with cutting-edge IT? And where do IT people go for guidance on ethically ambiguous situations? Far from self-evident, the answers may be critical to the development of the trust and integrity needed to succeed at E-commerce and online business.

Changes in technology and business processes can outpace companies' ability to consider their ethical implications or to train employees to deal with them. Few companies have formal programs like Lockheed Martin's, which requires its 140,000 employees to complete one hour of ethics training every year. "It's traditionally been seen as an add-on--'ethics is nice, but let's get back to work,'" says David Gebler, a principal at the Working Values Group in Boston, a consulting firm that's developed ethics training programs for Chase Manhattan Bank, Procter & Gamble, Prudential, Raytheon, and other companies. "You have to bring ethics into your business context. And E-business raises ethical issues that may have existed before, but not in such stark reality."

One IT manager considers the quality of his work to have ethical implications. "The impact of the decisions I make on our company is scary," says Frank Gillman, director of technology at Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP, a large law firm in Los Angeles. Gillman says his decisions on anything from an outsourcing partner to a WAN vendor could be critical to the firm's ability to operate and compete effectively. And that's an ethical burden in itself. "IT people need professional training on more than just how to work on computers," Gillman says. "We don't do enough in that area. I wish we could do more."

Many IT and business managers seem to take their cues about ethical conduct from the companies they work for. In an InformationWeek Research survey of 250 IT and business professionals, only 54% say they have a personal code for evaluating the ethical and moral implications of business decisions. Of those who do, 67% say it's based on their company's code of conduct; only personal experience polled higher (70%). An eye-opening 93% of all respondents say they agree with all aspects of their company's ethical code, and 96% say their company adheres to its code.

"I'm pretty shielded from those [ethical] questions by our human-resources department," says James Underwood, manager of IS at Canon Information Systems Inc. He's alluding to collecting Internet firewall log data that reveals which Web sites employees visit. The HR department "is responsible for what's ethical and legal as far as what they do with that information, and I'm happy to let them do that," Underwood says. "The question of whether they use it in an ethical manner is up to them."

A pragmatic view, to be sure, but is it a sound one? "IT people are the ones responsible for configuring technologies and systems that have ethical implications," says R. Edward Freeman, business administration professor and director of the Olsson Center for Applied Ethics at the University of Virginia's Darden School of Business, and co-editor of the Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary Of Business Ethics (Blackwell, 1998). "They have to be more than the mechanics who keep it running. They need to understand that ethics is at the center of what they do."

At a law firm where Frank Gillman formerly worked, one IT employee clearly didn't understand that. The worker sold company-owned disk drives for money to support his cocaine habit. Theft and drug use are bad enough, but that's not what horrified Gillman. To cover his tracks, the employee seriously compromised the firm's IT integrity by removing the system's data-mirroring capability, giving the system the appearance of having the added memory provided by the missing drives. "Can you imagine what would have happened if the system crashed?" Gillman says.

In large part to address potential IT-related liabilities, both inside and outside a company, a growing number of businesses have high-level ethics executives or chief privacy officers to enforce company standards. "Our goal is to raise awareness, to be proactive and preventive rather than punitive," says Tracy Carter Dougherty, Lockheed Martin's director of ethics communication and training, part of a corporate-level office of ethics and business conduct that reports to the chief operating officer and CEO. Lockheed Martin recently disciplined an employee who E-mailed a chain letter to friends in the company--and brought down a server that affected an entire business area. "When you hit that 'Send' key, there's no getting it back," says Dougherty. "You always have to be very mindful of the risks, and we depend on IT to tell us where the new risks are likely to be."

One new area of risk has to do with the use of handheld devices such as cell phones or personal digital assistants while driving, which has been cited as a factor in a growing number of traffic accidents. Mike Vleisides, senior manager of application development at Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. in Parsippany, N.J., spearheaded a "pull-off-the-highway" policy for the company's 3,500 field sales reps seeking to download data while in their vehicles--which Vleisides says constitutes about 90% of their working hours. "Our company would rather have our sales people pull over and spend 30 seconds using the devices safely than risk accident, injury, or worse using them while attempting to drive,'' he says.

Another area of risk, perhaps the riskiest, has to do with collecting personal data. In the InformationWeek Research survey, 80% of respondents say their companies collect customer data. Yet only 60% say their companies have a publicly displayed policy on the privacy of customer data they collect. Just 6% of those surveyed say their companies sell data to third parties, though the percentage jumps to 11% among companies with revenue of $1 billion or more. Health-care companies, which collect what may be the most sensitive customer data, have the highest percentage (9%) of companies selling data among five industries surveyed. Overall, 95% of respondents say their companies always adhere to their privacy policies, and virtually everyone says their customers know when specific types of data are being collected.

"We will treat customer information in a way that our customers expect it to be treated," says Robert Beason, outgoing CIO of the Southern Co., a $23 billion gas and utility holding company in Atlanta. Beason says the company has turned down third-party offers to buy some of the data within its 7-terabyte data warehouse of information on 4 million customers. "It's for our internal use, and we're not going to sell information in the open marketplace without written approval from customers," he says. "There has to be a business ethic that goes along with that."

But what role should IT people play in determining that ethic? Like scientists, IT professionals are often accused of being more interested in results than ramifications. "When your job is building the best-performing database you can, you don't always think about the ethical implications of how that data will be used," says Ed Altman, a former CIO at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. and now director of business development at integrator and staffing firm Metro Information Services. "The very people helping to create the [data privacy] problem don't realize how bad it is."

Yes they do, says Kathy Komer, president-elect of the International DB2 User Group, a worldwide organization of users of IBM's enterprise relational database. Or at least they're aware of the controversy. "I don't see anyone who takes managing databases lightly," says Komer, a database administrator for a large Northeastern company. But the user group has no written ethical policy concerning data collection, nor does it advise companies on ethical considerations in dealing with personal data, Komer says.

For consumers, the line between well-targeted marketing and privacy invasion has always been a fine one. Some argue the consumer privacy issue, when compared with the actual capabilities of online marketing technology today, is overblown. It's rarely possible and almost never cost-effective to segment customer data to the individual level. In the InformationWeek survey, 65% respondents say they segment customer data by product line, 46% by region, 41% by frequency of purchases, and 33% by profitability. "All this fuss about privacy policies is the political correctness of the 21st century," says admitted contrarian Peter Fader, professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business. "Let the market dictate what's good and bad. As technology advances, consumers also get smarter and more skeptical."

Most everyone in E-business agrees that questionable ethical moves that compromise customer privacy for short-term marketing gain are bad for business in the long run. "Online business is entering a more mature phase, and the issue of who the customer trusts becomes more of a competitive differentiator," says IBM chief privacy officer Harriet Pearson.

Lands' End Inc. believes that its renowned customer loyalty depends heavily on trust, and the apparel retailer has one of the industry's strictest online privacy policies. The company doesn't send E-mail promotions to its customers except by request and never sells or trades online customer data.

Lands' End's security audits include not only hacking tests on its firewalls, but ethical tests of IT and business employees in situations where data security could be compromised. "We test to make sure they make data available only to those who should see it," says Linda Severson, director of business systems. "You have to have tests that continually challenge your security and privacy processes. Ethics has to become more of a way of life, not a one-time policy posting."

Trust between workers and employers is another key issue putting IT managers in the midst of ethical decisions. Most companies forbid employees using company computers to access Web sites with material that is pornographic, violent, or hate-related. Dow Chemical Corp. fired 50 employees last year at a Freeport, Texas, facility for violating that rule. In the InformationWeek survey, more than half of the companies monitor their employees' use of the Web (62%) and E-mail (54%). Among companies larger than $1 billion, those figures jump to 77% and 70%. And consistent with respondents' overwhelming agreement with their corporate policies, most IT people believe such monitoring is ethical.

"Speaking for myself, I think employees' Web-usage logs should be available," says Dave Austin, human-resources IS specialist at manufacturer Leggett & Platt Inc. in Carthage, Mo. "If an employee is doing a poor job and the manager can see that person has visited eBay 85 times in the past week, the manager should be able to say that's not acceptable and must stop. And that should be explained to every employee up front." But Austin also says reasonable personal use of the Net should be allowed, given the fact that many devote long hours and weekend time to their jobs.

Another question is, who should this data be available to? Canon Information Systems' Underwood says he's been approached by department managers seeking a peek at the Web-surfing habits of certain employees. "I said, 'We have the information but you need to go to HR to get it.'"

When accounting firm Clifton Gunderson LLP in Peoria, Ill., started generating monthly reports on Web-site usage for its HR department, chief technology officer Matthew Camden, who studied business ethics while in graduate school at Loyola University, says he realized the technology manager producing the reports might be tempted to warn people whose names appeared on the list. "I said, 'You may see people on the list who sit next to you, but you can't do anything about it,'" Camden recalls. IT people need help in determining the proper ethical responses to ambiguous situations, he says, and IT and business managers need to provide that guidance. "It's not enough to have a rule; you have to do what you can to make people follow it."

Because of IT professionals' access to sensitive data, they must often do more than ensure compliance with company policy. At the Allen Matkins law firm, an IT employee cleaning up logs in the firm's contact-management application noticed something amiss. In a space for comments and notes usually left blank, one attorney, unaware it was a shared application, had keyed in two credit-card numbers, a savings-account personal ID number, and the access code for his home security system. Director of technology Gillman told the employee to notify the attorney immediately.

Call it CYA ethics. "Whenever there's a leak of information, one of the fingers of suspicion will be pointed at IT," Gillman says. "The more you act like you can be trusted, the less you'll be targeted."

Guarding data privacy takes on even more significance when supply-chain partners share information online outside company walls, as Lockheed Martin's Waterschoot knows. In industries such as automotive, high-tech manufacturing, aerospace and defense, and many others, collaborators on one project can often be competitors on another. "You need to make darn sure that the information being exchanged online is the right information," says ethics director Dougherty.

More suppliers are designing key components for competitors and sharing those designs online, says Michael Bauer, a partner in CSC Consulting's manufacturing practice and co-author of E-Supply Chain (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2000). "I hear a lot of emphasis on shortening cycle times and finding tools for security, but I haven't seen a lot of awareness or programs about the responsibilities of partners in an electronic supply chain," Bauer says. "The problem is human beings--not because they're malicious, but because they can be careless or ignorant about ethical implications."

That may be the key: Most IT managers and executives agree there needs to be more training in ethics, especially now that IT has taken a central role in doing business. Indeed, thinking of business and ethics, or IT and ethics, as opposing forces may be a false dichotomy. "The whole idea of positioning ethics and profits as a trade-off is like asking me if I want a heart or a lung," says University of Virginia's Freeman. "Well, I'm partial to both of them." --with Bob Wallace

Rwanda-DRC Solution!

Nyagatare — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 16:46:12 EST

New York Times Getting Closer to the Truth on the Resource War in the Congo Although the New York Times did not reveal the whole truth in Jeffrey Gettleman’s piece, Rwanda Stirs Deadly Brew of Trouble in the Congo, it no doubt laid the foundation for a more honest dialogue about the resource war in the Congo, which has resulted in dying and suffering of holocaust proportions. It is only a matter of time before the New York Times and other mainstream media get to the root of the matter that both French and Spanish Courts have already broached regarding Paul Kagame and Rwanda’s destructive actions in the Central African region. Even the International Court of Justice has weighed in on Rwanda’s partner in Crime in the Congo; Uganda and its leader Yoweri Museveni, another staunch British and U.S. ally. In 2005, the court ruled that the Congo is entitled to $10 billion in reparations from Uganda because of the human rights abuses it committed in the Congo and the looting of Congo’s resources. There is very little doubt that the court would have issued a similar ruling against Rwanda, especially considering that Rwanda is even more implicated in the Congo but the court lacked jurisdiction in the case brought to it by the Congo against Rwanda. The New York Times and other media should consider asking people such as Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Rick Warren, Bill Gates, Howard Schultz, Andrew Young, Cindy McCain and others why they have been silent about the atrocities in the Congo, when they are known to have the ear of Rwanda's leader Paul Kagame. All of these individuals have an historic opportunity to use their notoriety, access and standing in the world to play a key role in ending what UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon calls one of the worst tragedies of our time or what former UN Official Jan Egeland calls "the killing fields of our generation." Can they really continue to remain silent about the Congo and travel the world as paragons of morality and human decency when they have the ear of someone who unleashed what the United Nations says is the deadliest conflict in the world since World War II? Considering how vital Congo is to modern society and the world’s fight against climate change - Congo is a part of the second largest rainforest in the world - Congo's issues are not just Congolese or African issues but are world issues and they demand frank and honest engagement and responses from world leaders. The best way the West ( view Congolese leaders' and society's role and responsibility here) can contribute to bringing an end to the conflict is not an intervention force but rather real intervention diplomacy. Western nations can take their cue from The Economist when it notes “Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame is best placed to rein in General Nkunda’s men, and must be pressed to do so, with the threat of aid withheld if he does not. In the long run, he must also make political space in Rwanda for the Hutu rebel forces who maraud through eastern Congo and give General Nkunda a pretext for his depredations.” The former Fort Leavenworth, Kansas military student, Paul Kagame is not destabilizing the Congo on his own. He certainly has the backing of the United States and British tax payers as Timothy Reid laid out while at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University when he published "Killing Them Softly: Has Foreign Aid to Rwanda and Uganda Contributed to the Humanitarian Tragedy in the DRC" in the Africa Policy Journal, Spring 2006, Vol. 1. Maybe, just maybe, finally, we can have frank and honest talks about the Congo, put an end to the tremendous suffering and set my country on a path to peace and stability. We are hopeful that the Obama administration, if it will not listen to what Friends of Congo have been articulating for the longest, will at least in this case listen to the New York Times or the Economist and craft policies based on a sound assessment of the situation. I have articulated our policy prescriptions in an article published by thedailyvoice.com entitled “Congo in Crisis: What President Obama Can Do To Right Past Wrongs In US Policy.”
Kambale Musavuli
Spokesperson and Student Coordinator
Friends of the Congo http://www.friendsofthecongo.org/Blog.php

Poor Congo People!!!

Nyagatare — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 00:52:41 EST

Who is Laurent Nkunda?

By Olley Maruma

In 1997, a right wing Conservative politician and media commentator who grew up in Rhodesia wrote an opinion piece for the London Times which was syndicated around the world. In it he wrote: "I suggest that Europe left Africa before the habits (of diligence, probity, tolerance and trust in public administration) had become ingrained. We deceived ourselves into believing that it was enough to create structures of administration, appoint administrators and leave written instructions."

Without beating about the bush Matthew Parris went on: "It is time we began to think seriously about reoccupying the most hopeless and desperate parts of the continent and testing the possibilities of installing sound administrations equipped to teach the habits of government."
Robert Cooper, one of current Prime Minister Tony Blair's foreign policy advisors put it more bluntly. He suggested that the West should use the rougher methods of the 19th century, such a brutal force and military invasion to recolonise Africa.
The question is: do African leaders read the articles and opinions of these people and do they take them seriously? Looking at what has been happening in the DRC for the last decade, the attitude African leaders to what is happening in that country is astounding. All the new South African president could come up with was a platitudinous call for an immediate cease which the dissident Tutsi general Laurent Nkunda does not seem to have a reason to implement or respect.
The question is who is Laurent Nkunda and what does he want? Looking at him with his men in the jungles of the eastern DRC, he is a man who is well resourced and heavily armed. His weapons include anti-aircraft guns, armoured carriers, rocket launchers and other heavy weaponry. His men look well fed and are well dressed in smart military uniforms which look expensive and well tailored. Sometimes the 41-year old Nkunda, carrying his eagle-headed walking stick, wears the same military fatigues as those worn by American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The eagle is the national symbol of the United States. So the question is who is funding Laurent Nkunda, a man who was described by President Laurent Kabila as a "terrorist" and a "war criminal" by Pan African and other commentators?
Nkunda got his military training while helping Rwandan leader, Paul Kagame overthrow the Hutu government of President Juvenal Habyrimana in Rwanda. His candidates, which took part in the 2006 national elections in the DRC, did poorly in the eastern part of the country which is now under his effective military occupation.
On September 19 2007, Condoleezza Rice's State Department and USAID announced the provision of US$496 000 of new funds for wildlife conservation in the Virunga National Park in the eastern DRC. In a press release the State Department cited poaching, armed conflict and "democratic pressures" as justification for the grant.
Two suspicious researchers from Global Research, Georgianne Nienaber and Keith Harman Snow, carried out some investigations which revealed that the USAID "conservation" funds were being misappropriated and misdirected before they disappeared into thin air.
Evidence they gathered suggested that Laurent Nkunda's insurgency in the eastern DRC was receiving clandestine financial support in an Aid for Arms type of transfers similar to that involved in the Iran-Contras scandal in the 1980s.
Later they discovered that over the past years, millions of dollars in USAID funds had been given to Virunga National Park through the Central African Regional Programme for the Environment (CARPE). The funny thing was that wildlife conservation in eastern DRC was in such a shambles because all the funding seemed to have disappeared. Yet rebel armies, particularly Laurent Nkunda's, fighting in the region were receiving massive military support from unknown sources.
The Virunga region is located in the North Kivu province of the DRC. It has for a long time been the base of the dissident general and Rwandan Tutsi warlord, Laurent Nkunda. The fighting in the Congo's North Kivu province has displaced over a million people who have fled from the fighting in the past year alone. Most of the displaced are Hutus who represent 40 percent of the North Kivu population but amount to 99 percent of the displaced compared to less than 4 percent of the Tutsis. Some 1 000 people have been dying a day in the war torn eastern DRC.
Nkunda has blithely described all this human suffering as "the cost of freedom." The United Nations has called the war in the DRC as the deadliest conflict since World War II. Yet African leaders are behaving as if what is happening there is a minor nuisance to be placed second on an agenda after Zimbabwe's political impasse and its "cholera crisis!"
Familiarly, of course, after making such an indictment of the situation in the DRC what has the United Nations done about it? Zilch seems to be the appropriate answer.
Although Laurent Nkunda flaunts his whereabouts to the world media no attempt has been made to capture him despite the fact the United Nations has a peace keeping force of 17 000 men in the region, the largest in the world.
This answer to this puzzling scenario lies in who is funding Laurent Nkunda and why. Among the organisations receiving the funding from the US State Department and USAID for conservation work in the DRC, is the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund (DFGFI), which although it receives massive government funding, can canvas for donations from ordinary well wishing people.
Using the Freedom of Information Act, Global Research investigators discovered that although the DFGFI had received a total of at least US$4 693 384 from USAID between September 24 2001 and September 29 2004, it did not file audits for more than two years.
In September 2005, a conscientious American voter contacted his Congressman James Oberstar to complain that the DFGFI had failed to file federally mandated audits after receiving millions of dollars in grants of taxpayers' money.
The Congressman's inquiry indeed found that this was the case. But his queries to government institutions were poo poohed by senior government officials. Independent sources had long concluded that the United States government was using the DFGFI and its officials as a front for other activities in the DRC. The Global Research investigators estimated that some US$469 million had been directed to the black hole into which it disappeared in the DRC!
Oberstar was told by government officials that DFGFI audits were being done by a third party auditor who turned out to be the Defense Contract Audit Agency - a US government agency responsible for auditing US Department of Defense contracts. The question was: why was an agency of the Defense Department auditing programmes and funds designated for gorilla conservation in Central Africa?
Listed among the DFGFI's private contributors were Dr and Mrs. Nick Faust, CNN and certain mining and intelligence connected interests. Dr. Nicholas Faust reportedly has deep connections to the US Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Department. Both he and Ted Turner, a CNN shareholder, are linked to ESRI, a key contractor for the US Defense Department and intelligence sector which provides battle theatre GIS mapping and support technologies which according to its website are used for "a defense wide infrastructure supporting fighting missions, command and control installation, management and strategic intelligence."
Apart from other things, the GIS technology is used for sensing and identifying deposits of minerals or hydrocarbons (oil and gas) through prospecting from aerospace platforms. Independent sources say that the work carried out under this programme is handed straight to Paul Kagame the President and Defense Minister of Rwanda. Why the reports are not handed over to President Laurent Kabila of the DRC is a mystery. So what ESRI's operation is essentially doing is to use tax payers' money to carry out research which will be used to fatten the already fat pockets of oil and mining magnets.
To the American government this is of course acceptable because it is being done in the name of recolonising Africa for the American state. Interestingly, despite the involvement of many journalists in this endeavour, the extent of Western petroleum, mining and military involvement in Eastern Congo is never reported in their mainstream media. Gary Strieker, a former CNN journalist is a member of the DFGFI Board of Trustees.
Before he accepted this position, Steieker was a CNN journalist embedded with the Rwandan Patriotic Front during the Pentagon's covert operations to overthrow the government of Juvenal Habyarimana in Rwanda in 1994 that caused the genocide that claimed the lives of 800 000 people in 100 days. Apart from journalists, top former US State Department officials involved in mining companies that have been accused of plundering the eastern Congo's resources have turned up on the boards of some of the "conservation" organisations involved in the Viruga and other protected areas in Central Africa. One of them is Walter Kansteiner, a top level National Security Agency official in both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. Zimbabweans remember him for his relentless support for the regime change agenda in their country. Before joining the corridors of power in Washington, Kansteiner was a minerals expert specialising in coltan, one of the mineral byproducts of the warfare in DRC's Kivu province. Today, Kansteiner is on the Board of Directors of Moto Gold, now operating in the killing fields of the violent Ituri district near Lake Albert. A Canadian company Heritage Oil and Gas is also in the region looking for oil and gas.
The Congolese people in Kivu have no faith in Ban ki Moon's United Nations force MONUC, which they believe is pursuing a political agenda and is not serious about its "peace keeping" in eastern Congo.
That is why it has never dislodged Laurent Nkunda despite his military advances towards Goma, which are a violation of the territorial integrity of the DRC. They claim that Nkunda is a rich man who has bought both UN and government officials with the immense loot he has made from his insurgency. Nkunda allegedly earns at least US$100 000 a month in extortion and mineral theft which he uses to buy officials. They say he is being used by Western powers to leverage their position with Kabila in their quest to reverse the agreement signed with China on 17 September 2007 to invest billions of dollars in the DRC's infrastructure.
Nkunda, observers say, is the insurance policy of the US and its Western allies such as the German companies trying to hog access to the Congo's Luesha niobium mines and other minerals under Nkunda's control. Since most of Nkunda's money is funneled to him through Rwanda, many observers say that if Rwanda cut off its funding to Nkunda, his army would desert him and his grip on the gorilla sector of the Virunga would evaporate almost overnight. This of course misses the point that Nkunda is merely a pawn in a dangerous game of recolonisation. The moment he gets too big for his boots, all his atrocities and war crimes will suddenly be unearthed and he will be sent to join his friend Jean Pierre Bemba at The Hague

Peter Erlinder article-Rwanda DRC

Nyagatare — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:43:33 EST

Published on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 by CommonDreams.org Will President Obama Finally Bury King Leopold’s Ghost?

by Peter Erlinder

November 2008 was the 100-year anniversary of the Congo's conversion from the personal property of Belgian King Leopold II to a colonial possession of Belgium, itself. The King's brutal rule, documented in Leopold's Ghost, embarrassed the Belgians into switching "landlords" in 1908, but did little to ease the colonial burden on the Congolese people.

Between the European powers Berlin meeting that divided up Africa in 1885 and 1908, Belgium's Leopold II accumulated spectacular wealth for himself while an estimated 10-million Congolese died. Even more died before Congo finally got its independence on June 30, 1960. But, real independence has never arrived in the Congo, and foreign military and economic powers still control its destiny today! In 2008, Leopold's "Ghost" has been replaced by the United States and the United Kingdom, and surrogate-armies led by Rwanda's Paul Kagame and Uganda's Yoweri Musveni, as documented by reports commissioned by the UN Security Council more than 5 years ago....that the U.S. press has studiously ignored.

U.S. neo-colonial influence in Congo can be traced to the years just after nominal "independence," when Patrice Lumumba, its first democratically-elected prime minister, was assassinated by a western-backed "anti-communist" coup on January 17, 1961. Belgium apologized for its role in 2002 , but despite exposés like A Legacy of Ashes, the CIA history published last year that documents CIA crimes in the Congo, and elsewhere, the U.S. still downplays its role in assassinating Lumumba, and backing the "anti-communist" dictator-criminal Mobutu Sese Seko for more than 3 decades...until he was overthrown in 1997 by a U.S./U.K. sponsored invasion from Rwanda and Uganda, after the Soviet Union's collapse made him expendable.

During a lull in the fighting in the Congo, the UN Security Council commissioned detailed reports in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that document how the 1996 Ugandan/Rwandan military-invasion overthrew of Mobutu, put Laurent Kabila in power in 1997 and unleashed an ongoing resource war, when Kabila tried to reclaim the resource-rich eastern Congo from his erstwhile "allies." That war eventually brought Angola, Zimbabwe and other nations to the defense of the Congo's territory in what became known the First "World War of Africa." Since the 1996 invasion, the Congo has lost an estimated 6 million men, women and children, and the Rwanda/Uganda sponsored war continues today.

As central Africa teeters on the edge of another conflagration that threatens to touch off a Second "World War of Africa" even the New York Times is reporting that the increasing violence is based in a grab for resources. But, what has not been reported is that, more than 5 years ago, at least 3 UN Security Council-commissioned reports submitted over 3 separate years, identified the resource-grab by Rwandan and Ugandan elites as the main source of violence and death in the Congo. Each nation's capital has become the largest trading centers for riches that don't exist in either country, but exist in great plenty in the eastern Congo.

The UN reports describe how elites, related to government and military leaders in Rwanda and Uganda, are gorging themselves on the riches stolen from the areas under the control or their armies or their surrogates. For example, according to the UN reports Rwanda controls an area of the Congo more than 15-times its national territory.

The map of central Africa shows Rwanda and Uganda as smallish "bumps" on the backside of the Congo, a country the size of Western Europe. Uganda's population is only about 35 million and Rwanda's no more than about 8 million...but they have both managed to sustain a 12-year war of occupation in vast areas of the eastern Congo, and have threatened to take control of the entire country.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have taught the American people just how expensive wars of aggression and occupation really are. The occupation of the Congo has lasted nearly twice as long as George Bush's wars, which means that either the wars are very, very profitable, or the Ugandan and Rwandan militaries are getting support from outside central Africa...or both.

The 2001-03 UN-commissioned reports document just how lucrative the Congo invasion and occupation has been for its Rwandan and Ugandan sponsors....but it also helps to know, as reported by the U.K. Telegraph, that Uganda is one of the largest recipients of U.K military and economic aid on the African continent. And, Rwandan President Kagame was trained by the U.S. Army at Ft. Leavenworth and that Rwanda has been Africa's largest per capita recipient of U.S. military and economic aid. The Rwandan army has grown from 7,000 troops when Kagame invaded Rwanda from Uganda in 1990 to between 70,000 to 100,000 troops today. Rwandan and Ugandan troops and private military contractors are in Darfur, Somalia and part of the 180,000 "civilians" assisting the U.S. military in Iraq.

Only the United States and United Kingdom (not the UN or the "international community") have the power to stop the killing in the Congo by removing support for the military and economic crimes of their allies. But, in addition to direct governmental support, as we know from the movie "Blood Diamonds," cutting off the private capital that also fuels Africa's wars is also necessary. But, if the well-documented governmental and private Anglo-American interests in central Africa stop turning a blind-eye to the crimes being committed by their surrogates....that supply "blood"-coltan for cellphones, "blood"-gold, diamonds, tin and bauxite to North American and European markets, and proxy-troops in Africa and Iraq, the "puppet-combatants" would be unable to continue a large-scale war for very long.

Europe had its own 100-year war, and the Congo has already experienced an African variation with a century of European assistance. But, at the dawn of the 21st Century, the British and Americans can prevent what promises to be a 200-year genocide in the Congo and central Africa....but only if they choose to admit their complicity, and end it!

President Obama has many difficult challenges indeed....but his capacity for deeper understanding of neo-colonial manipulations in Africa than any U.S. president before him presents the possibility that he could emerge as a peacemaker in Africa on a scale that could even exceed the contributions of Nelson Mandela, and ensure Obama's place in world history. The question is whether he will have the wisdom, strength and courage to finally put Leopold's neo-colonial "Ghost" in its well-deserved grave....and, whether the Pentagon and U.S. economic interests will permit him to bury U.S. neo-colonialism in Africa, once and for all.

Peter Erlinder is Prof. of Law, Wm Mitchell of Law, St. Paul, MN; Past-President, National Lawyers Guild, NY; President, UN/ICTR-ADAD (UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda/Association des Avocats de la Defence); UN-ICTR Lead Defence Counsel

Technology to know!

Nyagatare — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:17:44 EST

As an industry professional, you may be interested to know about an
upcoming Web seminar being presented by Light Reading
(www.lightreading.com) - Security Tools for Service Providers: Technology Update.

Security requirements constantly evolve, not only for service
providers, but also for their customers. As many enterprises look to secure
their networks with costly layered defenses, new opportunities arise
for operators offering cost-effective managed security services "in
the cloud." Security also forms an essential part of next-generation
service delivery, for example, ensuring privacy for SIP- or IMS-based
multimedia services and maintaining the necessary session integrity
when connecting to other operators. This Webinar discusses the latest
developments in security technology for service providers and the
benefits of their application.

Join us on Wednesday, December 10, at 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m.
London time, for this live Webinar sponsored by Radware.

You can sign up for this event via this link:

http://metacast.agora.com/link.asp?m=53556&s=5951441&l=0

We hope to see you there!

Did you know all of this! Whaaah!

Nyagatare — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:48:29 EST

TELL OBAMA series: Congo-Rwanda: The difficult search for the Truth (part II) -- by Col Luc Marchal (translated from the French by CM/P) by Mick Collins on Wed 03 Sep 2008 11:58 AM EDT | Permanent Link [Here is our English translation of Belgian Col. Luc Marchal’s piece (posted here below) about the current state of Truth and Justice in Central Africa, and its relationship to the so-called ‘civilized’ world. Much of this information will not be new to CM/Pers—Chris Black, Peter Erlinder, David Barouski, and Keith Harmon Snow, have all contributed articles about the current Rwandan regime’s belligerence in obstructing a full disclosure of the real history of the troubled African Great Lakes region. With all that I've read and posted here—Maitre Black's pulling the covers off the murder of PM Agathe and the phony Dallaire genocide fax on which many dim scribblers like Phillip Gourevitch, Linda Melvern, and even my mainest pulpist, Elmore Leonard, have based their analyses of the Rwandan genocide; Professor Erlinder’s work, much cited below by Col Marchal, on the cover-up of the real causes of the Rwandan troubles, has recently been posted here; David Barouski’s interview with a Rwandan genocide survivor is invaluable to any understanding of these hideous events; and Mr. Snow’s accounts of the financial and commercial machinations behind both the industrialized carnage in Rwanda/Congo and the big studio spectacles it has generated, are important sources for the CM/P seminar on ‘Movies and the (un)Making of History’ (to be presented in Berlin at the end of October 2008)—it is difficult to imagine how most of the world continues listlessly to subscribe to the mawkishly, absurdly racist melodrama, a grotesquerie of neighbors senselessly hacking 8000-per-day of their fellows to death with farm implements, driven by nothing more nor less than pure, aboriginal tribal venom, that the wanton polluters of Human consciousness have so unscrupulously, yet methodically and persistently, foisted on us.

But this animosity toward Real History is far from unique to Rwanda or Central Africa. In fact, it is one of many parallels to the development of the Capitalist wars against Russia and China, and, for that matter, against all other popular, rational and decent governments throughout the world. Congo, like Russia and its near abroad, or China, is an unimaginably huge and rich storehouse of natural (including human, but especially energy) resources, and has for a long time been the target of Waste Capitalist (Imperialist) conquest.

In saner days, all the goals espoused by Western waste culture would have been pursued through political and diplomatic negotiations—just as in the 1930s the USSR sought through innumerable treaties to outlaw armed aggression as a means of settling international disputes. But since WWII, the world has found itself locked in a struggle for nothing less than the continued existence of Human Life. The death wish of advanced waste Capitalism, as expressed in its irrevocable economic dependence on arms production—production for destruction—has superceded all other socio-economic considerations. Just as it will be impossible for the next US president, whoever he may be, to put an end to any of the by now fully privatized imperialist crusades (nb—If Obama were to withdraw the complete US military contingent from Iraq, what would become of the even more numerous Private Military Contractors who are the chief stokers of that desert fire?), nothing can or will be achieved geopolitically lest it result from—and result in—the further expansion and intensification of military violence. No matter how strenuously Russia or China might advocate outlawing international war, the Western wasting forces will continue to attack them, both militarily and informationally (as in the cases of South Ossetia and Tibet), to kill their citizens and servicepeople, and to seize their territory—not so much for the seizure, domination and exploitation of their resources, but really for the advancement of their own militarism, the advanced placement of their military bases and weapons systems—and then they will reverse the charges for these aggressions onto their victims.

Rwanda has become a kind of micro-history for this deadly dynamic that has blazed a bloody path through the 20 century: Only the millions of victims of the on going anti-fascist struggles in the USSR (Russia) and China could dwarf the death tolls in Rwanda/Burundi/Congo—something like 9 million since 1990.

And the Belgian Officer Luc Marchal has singularly valuable first hand, boots-on-the-ground, experience with the real horrors of Western wastage. His insights as to the political utilization by the US/UK/EU and Israel of a flaccid unto lifeless system of international law as a cover for their continuing military aggressions, and their further institutionalization of a reverse-victimating gambit in their promotion of the vapid legal notions of 'Victims Rights' and 'Victims Justice', give his presentation here a very special pertinence today. —mc]

*****************

Congo-Rwanda: The difficult search for the Truth (part II)

In a recent article, we discussed how much more laborious has become the search for the truth of the tragedy that, for so many years, has befallen the peoples of Rwanda and the east of Congo. Briefly, here are the areas we discussed:

1. The involvement of the US in the events that effected this region since the early 1990s;

2. The total lack of will on the part of the international community to shed light on the attack of 6 April 1994 in which presidents Habyarimana and Ntaryamira perished, the attack that marked the beginning of a holocaust of 6 to 8 million African souls;

3. The disaster produced by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), which, contrary to the mandate conferred on it by the UN Security Council, has contented itself with rendering a biased and costly form of justice;

4. The independent investigations carried out by French and Spanish judges.

As if echoing the concerns expressed in that article, several unique events have occurred since its writing. These events confirm the pertinence of our analysis and preoccupations. So it seems a good time to comment on certain of these and, in that way, to update this information.

The manifesto of Professor Peter Erlinder

Peter Erlinder is a professor at Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota. He is also president of ADAD, the Association of Defense Attorneys, at the ICTR and lead counsel to Major Ntabakuze in the Military I case. He has recently published a document containing the results of several years of his experience arguing before this court of International Justice. In reality, it is more of an indictment laying out the missteps of this institution that has strayed from its prescribed role by adopting a thoroughly partisan attitude. This work contains no real surprises for those who have closely followed the work of the ICTR. However, the truly shocking testimony does not seem to have much concerned the world, except those who remain irrevocably committed to the universal principles of Peace and Justice. Which is certainly the case with the RPP.

1. The one-way vision of the Prosecutor

With regard to the knowledge gained since 1994 as to the importance and pertince of the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA), it is undeniable that the Prosecutor, by pursuing only one of the protagonists in the Rwandan conflict, has not fulfilled the mandate conferred by the UN Security Council. This mandate authorized the prosecution of all crimes committed in Rwanda during 1994. This is what led professor Erlinder to the following conclusion: either the Rwandan war was the only war in human history during which only one side was guilty of international crimes, or the ICTR has been manipulated for political reasons. Let’s just let the former ICTR Prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, respond to these two assertions: It is not right that our work should be undercut by politics. It is painful to realize how we have trivialized the principles of international justice because Kagame signed an agreement with the US. We can no longer be certain as to why the work of the Tribunal was corrupted and who cut short the work that was to be done here.

However, in August 1994, the ’Gersony Report’ (the only independent investigation to be conducted in Rwanda after the seizure of power by the Rwandan Patriotic Front—RPF) informed the highest UN authorities that mass killings of the Hutu population had been committed by the RPA. No follow-up to this report was ever initiated, and it remained out of circulation for several years. On the other hand, in October 1994, Kofi Annan (at the time head of the UN Office of Peacekeeping) and Brian Atwood of the US administration directly intervened with Jean-Marie Vianney Ndagijimana (Foreign Minister under the RPF government) to cover up the crimes committed by the RPA. Former Minister Ndagijimana testified to this fact before the ICTR.

There are also other facts, all verifiable, presented in Professor Erlinder’s treatise demonstrating that while a large number of important political and military figures from the previous Rwandan government were locked up in Arusha, the Prosecutor was in possession of all the elements necessary to bring similar charges against several leading figures in the RPF and its military arm, the RPA.

2. The US, the UK and Paul Kagame or the Cosa Nostra

The unconditional protection offered, principally by the US, to Paul Kagame has created a total impunity at the heart of the ICTR that has well served the political and military authorities of the Kigali regime for the last thirteen years. So it should not be surprising that in July 2003 Carla Del Ponte announced her office was in possession of sufficient evidence to bring charges against members of the Kagame government, US Secretary of State Colin Powell and Kofi Annan (by then Secretary General of the UN), both of whom were mouthpieces for Kagame’s demands and had openly expressed their beliefs that Carla Del Ponte should be relieved of her duties as ICTR Prosecutor.

Still in this context, President Bush put himself into the game by rushing Pierre Prosper, his ambassador-at-large for war crimes, off to Arusha. His mission was to order Carla Del Ponte to cease all legal actions against the RPF. As to what the deeper purpose of this move was, the answer could not have been clearer: to serve the strategic interests of the US in Central Africa.

We know what happened to Carla Del Ponte. As to the current ICTR Prosecutor, Assan Bubacar Jallow, his position on the case is quite simple: his office has studied the question, and in his judgment, the double-presidential assassination of 6 April 1994 does not fall within the legal mandate of the ICTR. Such clairvoyance will doubtless keep him from a fate like that of Carla Del Ponte’s.

3. The despoiling of the riches of Congo

Another subject treated by Peter Erlinder is the Rwandan-Ugandan looting of the riches of eastern Congo and, as a direct result, causing millions of Congolese deaths during the years of war there. This aspect of the problem is illuminated by a report from UN experts who, in 2003, clearly identified Paul Kagame as one of the kingpins of the chaos that is still being visited on this part of Congo.

And he concludes that the image of ‘democratic liberators’ that prevailed in 1994, has absolutely nothing to do with the true character of the government in place in Kigali.

4. The attack on 6 April 1994

As the lead counsel for one of the main defendants in the Military I trial, Peter Erliner has had direct access to important documentation of the events that took place in the Great Lakes region of Africa after 1990. Having dedicated a good deal of time to the study of this information, his conclusions are categorical: not only is there a deliberate will to cover up the truth of this pretended crusade of liberation by the RPF forces in 1994, but, moreover, the ICTR is also in possession of evidence that puts the responsibility for the double-assassination of presidents Habyarimana and Ntaryamira directly on Paul Kagame.

One of the consequences of this revelation by the ICTR is that charging solely those who were vanquished in 1994 makes any possibility of reconciliation among the Rwandan people pure illusion. And furthermore, this attitude makes the recurrence of such a tragedy highly possible. It is just a little ironic that this institution, that is supposed to bring about justice, would, through its actions, engender and exacerbate deep feelings of injustice in the hearts of the majority of Rwandan people.

In concluding his dissertation, Professor Erlinder stresses that though the ICTR was originally conceived as an independent institution, it will remain historically a Tribunal that has come to be a weapon of retaliation in the hands of the victors in the war of 1994, who, at all costs and by any means, have assured the total impunity of a leader who, in the Rwandan bi-monthly ‘UMUCO’ (actually published in Rwanda!), recently was compared to Adolf Hitler.

The massacre at Gakurazo or the enormous incoherence of the ICTR Prosecutor

In our previous article we discussed the killing of several Rwandan priests by the RPA at Gakurazo on 5 June 1994. A few days after the publication of the article, the authorities in Kigali announced the arrests of four suspects in the massacre. In a surprising fashion and without really taking the time to reflect, the ICTR Prosecutor withdrew from the case and ceded all authority to the Rwandan judiciary. Shocking on more than one account. On the one hand, the Arusha Tribunal has precedence over national judiciaries as to incriminating evidence. On the other, this way of proceeding is totally contrary to the Prosecutor’s own charging strategy against the accused. In fact, in the Military II trial, the former Chief of Staff of the Rwandan Armed Forces, Augustin Bizimungu, and the former Chief of the Rwandan Gendarmerie, Augustin Ndindiliyimana, are charged with the exactions and crimes committed by their subordinates. How do you explain that, on one side, certain commanders are to be held responsible for the misdeeds of their subordinates, but not on the other?

And last but not least, the ICTR’s transferring of its authority to adjudicate the crimes committed by the troops of the RPA to the Rwandan justice system is a bit like having let the Nazis determine who was responsible for the massacres at Oradour-sur-Glane in France or at Bande in Belgium. In any case, true justice does not permit the judge to be a party in the litigation. By this transfer, the Prosecutor has called into serious doubt something he has always affirmed: the certain knowledge that the political and military leaders of the ancien regime are the only ones responsible for all the crimes committed in Rwanda in 1994.

However, no one is fooled. By meekly allowing the Kigali regime the possibility of judging the ‘bit players’, the Prosecutor has permitted those who really ordered the massacre at Gakurazo never to have to answer to anyone. For that matter, everyone should appreciate the Prosecutor’s professional ethics for what they really are. The Prosecutor has, in fact, known the exact circumstances of these killings since 2003. They are by now so detailed as to erase all doubt: the priests were murdered on the orders of a high authority. The conditions under which they were killed resulted from a deliberate decision and not from spontaneous acts of revenge on the part of some soldiers driven to madness by the pain of having their families wiped out, which might have rendered them guilty.

This misstep by the Prosecutor, which came after the publication of Professor Erlinder’s manifesto, only served to further confirm Erlinder’s conclusion: the Arusha Tribunal is nothing more than a clearing house for certain partisan interests aimed at assuring all power to a totalitarian minority in the service of a capitalist oligarchy.

The case of General Karenzi Karake

You can reasonably surmise that the brilliant career of this RPA officer is the direct result of the service he has rendered to the cause of the RPF. In 1994, we knew very well what that involved. He served as the liaison officer to Canadian General Roméo Dallaire, commander of the military contingent of MINUAR. This assignment gave him total freedom of movement and allowed him to be completely on top of everything that was discussed inside this peacekeeping mission. We also knew that he worked for the intelligence services of the RPA. More than anything else, this liaison officer ‘cover’ permitted him to carry out the general coordination of the actions of all the underground cells of infiltrators deployed to Kigali by the RPF. Some of these cells were charged with the physical elimination of people who were thought to be either too critical of the Front, or just simply destabilizing influences on the situation inside the country. He thus fell directly under suspicion for the assassinations of two Rwandan politicians: Emmanuel Gapyisi and Félicien Gatabazi.

In August 2007, he was tapped to be the second in command of the African peacekeeping force in Darfur (UNAMID). After this assignment, the Human Rights organization‘Human Rights Watch’ expressed its total disapproval to the Secretary General of the UN, as well as to the African Union, because of this officer’s direct responsibility in the many deaths of Congolese civilians during the June 2000 invasion of the region around Kisangani by Rwandan/Ugandan forces.

With Karenzi Karake’s mandate to lead the UNAMID set for only 12 months, the question has recently been just how to extend his term. And, let’s remember, at the beginning of this year, the Spanish judge, [Fernando Andre] Merelles, charged Karenzi with direct responsibility in several massacres, war crimes and crimes perpetrated against Rwanda. After that, many voices were raised to stop the renewal of his mandate. But then there was the unconditional support from the US, which, by sending its under-Secretary of State for African Affairs, Jendayi Frazer, as well as its UN ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, directly intervened on Karenzi’s behalf with Ban Ki-Moon to effectively renew the officer’s mandate. As for the government in Kigali, sticking with its well-tried and tested tactic of opposing those who put an end to the genocide to those who were responsible for it, President Kagame simply threatened to remove the significant Rwandan contingent from the peacekeeping force if Karenzi’s mandate was not renewed.

How is General Karenzi Karake’s case special? In fact, he is a perfect illustration of that international justice that holds to a double standard, one for the winning side and another for the losers. A specific example that is incontestable is that of General Léonidas Rusatira, a former officer in the Rwandan government’s armed forces, who also served with the RPA, before going into exile in Belgium. At the height of the torment in 1994, this man helped save numerous lives, and I can attest to this, having been a direct witness. However, a few years later, here he is on a list of genocidaires (a list established by the Kagame government and that varies with the needs of that regime). Without much reflection, Carla Del Ponte signed an arrest warrant that the Belgian authorities then executed. General Rusatira spent three months in a Belgian prison. Enough time for two experts recognized by the ICTR (professors Filip Reyntjens and André Guichaoua) to get Carla Del Ponte to admit that there was no basis whatsoever for the charges against Rusatira. After that she could only withdraw the arrest warrant. It’s troubling though, isn’t it, that this kind of justice can give a blank check to the ‘liberators’, allowing them to neutralize anyone who might represent an obstacle to their plans? Sad to say, this particular example is not the only one of its kind—far from it.

What makes the Karenzi case different from that of Radovan Karadzic, of Sudanese president Omar Hassan al-Bashir or even of Jean-Pierre Bemba or Paul Kagame? They are all the subjects of serious criminal charges at the international level. However, they are far from all being treated in the same way. When the international community has figured out how to correct this iniquitous situation, then, perhaps, we can write ‘international justice’ with a capital ‘J’. This is our wish, anyway.

Rwanda: an Anglo-Saxon protectorate?

Decidedly, these last few months, this magnet, Rwanda, has become a must-stop in the itineraries of many important American and British personalities.

The first visitor of note in 2008 was none other than George W. Bush, himself. The moment of his visit most reported in the press was his speech at the genocide memorial in Gisozi, near Kigali. In reality, the purpose of this brief stopover was to finalize the terms of an agreement to make Rwanda the hub of the US presence in Africa. The electronic equipment that is going to be deployed in this the land of the volcanoes will enable the US and its friends to listen in on all communications, by radio, telephone and any other means, over the entire African continent. What’s more, a vast military zone will be granted to the Americans in the region of Bugesera. The exact final state of this ‘reserved zone’ remains unclear. The interest of the US in Rwanda, in this particular area, is nothing new. The same demand was presented to President Habyarimana, who did not sign on to it as had been hoped.

If the current Republican candidate for the White House, John McCain, has not, himself, yet shown up in Rwanda, his wife [Cindy] just paid a quick, clean and almost secret call. She might have run into Chery and Tony Blair, who are by now regular denizens of the place. In fact, since leaving 10 Downing Street to his successor, Tony Blair has become a special advisor to Paul Kagame.

A little while ago, it was Bill Clinton whose tour of Africa led him once again to Rwanda. We remember the apologies he presented to the Rwandan people at the time of his previous visit. But these people will never forget that he was President of the United States in 1994, and that for several weeks his representatives led a pugnacious foot-dragging campaign to keep the word ‘genocide’ from being uttered in the semi-circle of the UN Security Council.

Just as the repeated visits of Anglophone personalities to Kigali are not the result of mere chance, neither do the kinds of expeditions by those who have preyed on Central Africa for so many years have anything to do with fate. Both are the direct consequence of covetousness for the immense underground wealth of this region. The Rwandan and Congolese peoples are doubtlessly growing little by little into a full awareness of their total abandonment by the so-called ‘civilized’ world, which, from one side of its neck, preaches ‘good governance’, while from the other it unstintingly sows chaos, all the better to loot and pillage the natural resources that do not belong to them.

The Rwandan Commission on the role of France

At the beginning of 2008, a Rwandan Investigatory Commission published its report on the role of France before, during and after the genocide. Remember that the creation of this commission in 2006 was a direct response to the almost personal insult and injury caused by the results of the investigation led by French [anti-terrorist] judge, [Jean-Louis] Bruguière, on the attack [against the Rwandan presidential jet] of 6 April 1994.

Let’s leave the analysis of the work of this commission to experts. But we should take note of one point that seems strange, to say the least. While Judge Bruguière’s investigation sets forth in the minutest detail the machinations behind this attack on the president’s plane, the investigation of the Rwandan government commission, overseen by Jean de Dieu Mucyo, does not utter a single word about this terrorist act. This should have been the perfect opportunity for the Kigali regime not only to put forth all the elements necessary to counter the charges of the French Judge, but especially to lift the veil of suspicion that hangs over the RPF with regard to this act's triggering the Rwandan apocalypse.

It’s useless merely to stir the pot. If no explanation is forthcoming from the commission, it is because this terrain is much too slippery. In reality, this silence is the highest form of acknowledging the solid basis for the Bruguière report’s [English translation on this blog—mc] conclusions as to the direct responsibility of Paul Kagame in this terrorist attack.

The commission is another example of the technique of ‘reversed-accusations’, a practice the Kagali authorities have excelled in for many years. It is doubtlessly one more step in Rwanda’s willful attempts to surmount all international resistance to its self-proclaimed ‘universal competence’. To this end, the ground has been prepared for some time. The Rwandan president has taken advantage of every one of his trips abroad to denounce the arrogance of Western justice in reserving for itself the right to accuse the citizens of ‘weaker nations’, and directly citing the charges made by French and Spanish courts. Even though it is difficult to see Rwanda as a ‘weak nation’ with its abundant workforce and its impressively equipped military.

But this insistence that it be granted the judicial implements of universal competence really hides another purpose than just getting back at those countries that presumptuously demand an explanation from the liberator of Rwanda. In fact, more than 14 years after the events, it has become more and more difficult, as was the case in the past, to add endlessly to the list of genocidaires those of whom you want to be rid. This technique is a thing of the past and should be replaced. Universal competence gives the regime in Kigali an excellent and permanent opportunity to pursue, anywhere and everywhere, people who might be considered potential obstacles to the hegemony of the current Rwandan nomenclature. And this is not all, because this same universal competence could also be used against those who search for the truth, those who oppose the intellectual tyranny imposed by those who deliberately chose the force of arms to take power in Rwanda. In other words, many of those who are being classify, in an opportunistic and simplistic fashion, as revisionists and negationists.

The danger is real. But, basically, it is expressions of Truth and Justice that will suffer. All the experts on Central Africa presently agree on one point: the true history of the region, from 1990 until today, is still to be written. Carla Del Ponte, herself, recognized that if the RPF was found to be responsible for the attack of 6 April 1994, the history of the Rwandan genocide must be completely rewritten.

Here is what is really at stake in all the hubbub behind this opposition to the cocked notion of a ‘Western Justice’. It is, above all, about the perpetuation, by any and all means, of the ‘official version’ of the events.

Conclusions

The UN Security Council, in its Resolution 1824, has extended by one year the mandate of the judges at the ICTR. In the current state of affairs, this extension will doubtlessly do little to change the way this Tribunal functions. I think that it is mainly a question of getting rid of the backlog of cases and of finding an acceptable solution to the problem of transferring certain cases to national jurisdictions, but not to that of Rwanda, which continues to express its opposition to the ICTR judges themselves.

However, when you consider that more than a year and a half after the conclusion of the Military I trial, the presiding judges have yet to render a decision (it is difficult to imagine such a situation anywhere else!), the ICTR appears far from being able to call it a day. Especially in view of all the affairs that still need to be concluded.

Let’s also consider that this extension is perhaps a much wished for opportunity to change the direction of things. But it is still mandatory that those who are in a position to act mobilize for the cause of Truth and Justice.

The major difference between 1994 and 2008 is that if it was difficult to determine who was responsible for crimes at the time, or just after, they were committed, today no one can say that he doesn’t know or that he can’t know. One thing is certain: if Western political leaders won’t unequivocally declare their determination to find out the whole truth about the real nature of the events that continue to bathe the Great Lakes region in blood, then we must insist they admit to their being accomplices in the next genocide which will surely be inflicted on this tortured part of Africa. Because if, in the West, they don’t want to know, the Rwandans and Congolese, most certainly, know all too well who is responsible for their terrible suffering. Today, it is most unseemly to continue to use the phrase:

‘Oh! I didn’t know.’

Luc Marchal
Former Commander
Kigali Section of UNAMIR
August 2008

Waah!!!Every American should read this! This is.....

Nyagatare — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:47:17 EST

Two years later, Rwanda Fiber Optic! What do you know?

Nyagatare — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:57:50 EST

Sunday, November 19, 2006 (SF Chronicle)
Fiber optic networks to Rwanda's rescue
Josh Ruxin

The same technology that has transformed the way Americans live and work
during the past 50 years may soon propel the economies of the poorest
countries from pre-industrial directly into the 21st century -- in a
fraction of the time. And the potential of technology for enabling these
countries to cope with famine, poverty and disease are enormous.
Rwanda, one of the poorest countries in Africa, had barely 3,000 landline
telephones a decade ago -- that's 1 phone for every 3,000 people. Today,
it's rapidly becoming one of the most wired nations in Africa.
One company, Terracom, is laying a fiber and high-speed wireless
infrastructure throughout Rwanda's 11,000 square miles that will soon
deliver a level of Internet connectivity only recently rolled out in the
United States. Along with excellent mobile phone coverage, this project
will not only transform communications, it could transform the economy and
help the country lift itself out of poverty.
In Kigali, Rwanda's capital, where a good Internet connection five years
ago cost $1,500 per month, the price has plummeted to only $70. Mobile
broadband, the same technology offered by Verizon and Sprint in the United
States, is also available, and, for an additional $70 per month, you can
get a card for a laptop delivering between 400 and 700 kbps.
Using the same technologies we have in the United States, development
agencies, businesses and schools can finally get the tools to thrive. For
example, the government is starting to link widely dispersed health
clinics and hospitals to the Internet and to each other. These health
centers and hospitals are now able to share information on treatment
protocols, medication needs and disease prevalence.
Disease surveillance is an important topic. (Think of how much attention
was given in the United States to the avian flu.) Communications could
finally allow Rwanda to monitor any new outbreaks or changes in the rates
of proliferation for AIDS and malaria.
A major challenge is to make technology accessible to most Rwandans. Up to
now, a major obstacle to Internet access has been the price tag of
computers. Even in Rwanda, where the price has dropped dramatically, PCs
are still far out of reach of average citizens or entrepreneurs.
Per-capita income is only about $230 per year.
However, the planned delivery of high bandwidth to even the most far-flung
villages and towns presents an extraordinary opportunity: rapid migration
to low-power "thin clients." A "thin client" is essentially just a screen,
a keyboard and an Internet connection. If the bandwidth is good enough,
all the software runs on a computer remotely located where there is
adequate power.
Thin clients cost around $100, use far less electricity and don't have
moving parts that break. They are the enabling feature of a real computer
revolution -- and one to which even the poor can have access. It is,
therefore, entirely conceivable that many Rwandans could have, before
long, their own "virtual desktops" that could be accessed from any
terminal anywhere on the planet.
We're already starting pilot projects with this technology in one of the
poorest places on Earth -- Mayange, Rwanda. Per-capita income there is
about $20 per year. Less than a year ago, the people of Mayange were
enduring drought and famine; computers and Internet connectivity would
have been the last things on their minds.
However, with the government of Rwanda, other partners and the Millennium
Villages Project of Columbia University's Earth Institute, we're
introducing basic low-tech interventions in agriculture, health and
education that seek to end Mayange's poverty in fewer than five years.
Now, with some of their most basic needs being met, the villagers are
beginning to see how computer technology can transform their lives even
more.
With improved seed and fertilizer, farmers have increased their
productivity as much as tenfold, and some farmers have earned so much
money from their crops that they have been able to buy cell phones and
start small businesses. With computers, farmers would have access to
valuable information on farming processes, and they can identify new
customers and markets. The country's coffee has become so good that March
was Rwandan coffee month at Starbuck's.
In health, the Millennium Villages Project's use of technology has helped
solve basic staffing and supply problems. The Mayange Health Center now
provides effective basic care -- everything from delivering babies to
providing bed nets to prevent malaria. Soon the Mayange health center will
introduce electronic medical records, computerized financial management
and inventory controls for drug supplies. Telemedicine for remote
diagnosis and specialist care will also be available.
Through the Millennium Villages Project, computers have been introduced in
the school, allowing teachers, who have on average 60 students per class,
to spend less time keeping track of grades, students and coursework, and
more time teaching. Add Internet connectivity and thin clients, and the
potential for learning will be as limitless as the World Wide Web.
All of this can happen -- almost immediately -- by introducing thin
clients into these working environments. And other developments will
energize change even further.
There are two separate initiatives, for instance, to bring fiber-optic
cable to the 100 million people of Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and
Uganda. One is the East African Submarine Cable sponsored by many
governments; the other is privately sponsored to bring a fiber cable
across the sea from India.
This connectivity could transform even the poorest parts of Africa, just
as India's economy is being transformed with growing business in call
centers and back-office outsourcing. All it takes is English-speaking
college and high school graduates eager for work -- of which Africa has
many -- and the connectivity to link them to a global economy.
Given a chance, technology has the potential to power less developed
countries into the 21st century. At a time when poverty is at the core of
so much distrust, isolation and unjust suffering in the world, it is in
America's interest to invest in and sponsor technology that can help poor
countries give their people the same opportunities for entrepreneurship
and prosperity that we have so long enjoyed.

Josh Ruxin, assistant clinical professor of public health at Columbia
University, is director of the Access Project in Rwanda. Contact us at
insight@sfchronicle.com. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2006 SF Chronicle

Rwanda, Technology and Religion

Nyagatare — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:52:25 EST

Sunday, December 24, 2006 The pastor and the president In Paul Kagame, Rick Warren says he has found a partner for his PEACE plan. But the Rwandan president may have another purpose. BY GWENDOLYN DRISCOLL The Orange County Register Comments 0 | Recommend 1

KIGALI, Rwanda – In the reception area outside Rwandan President Paul Kagame's offices – in the second of several reception areas patrolled by armed guards – a television entertains guests with an American drama about Jesus.

Inside, Kagame, a tall, matchstick-thin man whose elegant suit hangs on him like a sail, greets visitors on a gilded chair.

The contrast of external piety and internal power is perhaps apt. During the past year, Rwanda's powerful president has embarked on an uncommon partnership with Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren and his global PEACE plan, an effort to link churches in networks of evangelism and practical good works.

Uncommon because one of the five goals of Warren's PEACE plan is to "combat egocentric leadership." In general, Warren says, this means steering clear of Africa's often corrupt leaders.

"I've actually sat down with presidents in Africa ... and my first question is, 'Are you going to rip me off?' " says Warren. "And I say: 'I have the ability to bring in resources and investments. We're certainly not going to come in here if you're just going ... put it in a Swiss bank account.' "

But for Warren, Kagame is the exception to the rule – a "great leader" who spoke at Angel Stadium of Anaheim in 2005 as part of Saddleback Church's 25th anniversary and who has let the church field-test its PEACE plan in dozens of Rwandan villages.

For Kagame, however, PEACE may have other purposes.

The former director of military intelligence for neighboring Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has brought stability to Rwanda but also an authoritarian style of governance that worries nongovernmental organizations and human-rights observers. By working so closely with Kagame, they say, Warren and his teams of PEACE missionaries may be unwittingly playing politics.

The result of this relationship between the African leader and the evangelical pastor has implications for the effectiveness of faith-based initiatives such as the PEACE plan. It may also test Saddleback Church's ability to discern the character of a country and a culture that even Rwandans describe as notoriously opaque.

"Rwandans will say, 'You cannot trust (Rwandans). We have a thousand hearts,' " says Gary Scheer, a Baptist missionary who has worked in Rwanda for decades.

Not that Paul Kagame isn't worthy of admiration. In 1994, he ended a genocidal campaign by a virulently racist government that killed up to 1 million members of the minority Tutsi tribe, as well as moderate members of the Hutu majority. Kagame, a Tutsi, and his Uganda-trained Rwandan Patriotic Front have controlled Rwanda since.

For Kagame, Warren's PEACE plan is a chance to help his traumatized people recover.

"It's as if by our ... tragic history that we've ... lost a sense of purpose for life. That's why it's so easy to destroy life," Kagame said in an interview with The Orange County Register. "Grasping the meaning of life ... is more relevant for our society than any other."

Still, Kagame says the most important aspect of the PEACE plan is its practical assistance.

The measure of progress "is by seeing the incomes of ordinary people go up, by being able to meet the basics of daily needs," he says.

Kagame also says Saddleback has been "extremely useful" in connecting Rwanda's tourism and investment sectors to influential decision-makers in the West.

Warren "has already connected us with a lot of people," says Kagame. "He's been telling different investors and people who lead powerful institutions … about Rwanda."

Such pragmatism is typical of the quiet former general whose vision for his country is decidedly more free-market than faith-based.

A concept paper distributed by the Rwandan government in 2002 laid the ambitious goal of transforming Rwanda, a country of subsistence farmers living on less than a dollar a day, into a "knowledge-based economy" by the year 2020.

Kagame's dream is reflected in Rwanda's capital city, where smooth roads, Internet cafes and a building boom suggest an orderly and business-minded approach to governance.

A mutual love of technology is in part the reason Warren says he trusts Kagame.

"Tinhorn dictators hate the Internet," Warren says. "They don't want open access of information. They don't want people knowing what's going on elsewhere. They don't want anyone criticizing them."

Warren was also impressed when Kagame introduced him to a member of Rwanda's political opposition.

"He said, 'I'm actually in the opposition, and I believe (Kagame) is a man of integrity, and I believe he wants what's best for our country,' " Warren recalls.

But "opposition" to Rwanda's quiet general is carefully controlled, according to human-rights organizations and nongovernmental organizations working in the country.

Although Rwanda's development efforts were commended in a report by an African peer-review initiative, investigators also expressed concerns about the country's democratic process.

Investigators from the New Partnership for Africa's Development called the country's separation of powers inadequate and its 2003 presidential and parliamentary elections – which many observers say were manipulated to install politicians friendly to the Kagame regime – flawed.

Despite an ostensibly multiethnic government, human-rights observers say a core group of urban Tutsi elite control the reins of power. Political opponents, particularly Hutus, have been forced to flee the country under often trumped-up charges of inciting genocide.

"You can't continue using the genocide as a crutch forever," says Alison de Forges, senior adviser on Africa for Human Rights Watch. "This society has to move beyond to a more open political system."

Kagame's supporters do not dispute accusations of authoritarianism but say it is necessary.

"He is not authoritarian to the level I would wish," says Antoine Rutayisire, a Tutsi African evangelist and vice chairman of the Rwandan government's Unity and Reconciliation Committee. "When you're ruling a country that's coming out of chaos ... you don't go for democracy, you go for autocracy."

Kagame's supporters say a strong hand is needed to keep order in a country where poverty and the slow prosecution of mostly Hutu prisoners accused of having taken part in the genocide has destabilizing potential.

Instead, Kagame says he prefers to concentrate on initiatives that can reprogram the Rwandan mind-set away from the enmities of the past.

"It's about how do (Rwandans) get out of this whole plight our people find themselves in," Kagame says. "Many of them are victims of bad politics, bad history, that is behind this tragic situation."

There may be other reasons why Kagame has welcomed evangelical churches like Saddleback to his country.

Before the war, most Hutus belonged to the Catholic Church, an institution used by both Belgian colonists and the past Hutu-dominated regime as an instrument of state power. Today, the association of Catholicism with the Hutu majority remains, despite uneven efforts by the Catholic Church to atone for its actions.

Meanwhile, Rutayisire and other evangelicals hold prayer breakfasts and Bible studies for Rwanda's leaders and have participated in rallies for Kagame during the 2003 elections. Protestant churches are the primary beneficiaries of the PEACE plan, as the Catholic Church, citing concerns about "the clarity of people's intentions" has stayed away.

The concern, observers say, is that by working exclusively with churches whose leadership is in large part associated with the Tutsi elite, Saddleback Church may be making a political contribution as well as a social one.

"The Catholic Church still represents an alternative power base," says a human-rights expert living in Rwanda, who requested anonymity citing a fear of government reprisal. "So by welcoming in the evangelical churches (Kagame is) simultaneously showing the West (his) openness to ideas and (he's) weakening (his) opposition."

Kagame answers that his government is not beholden to any one denomination and that he is personally ambivalent about religion.

"I don't know whether going to church means believing or whether people (go) to church because they used to go there," he says.

But he describes any encouragement of evangelical initiatives as a means of destabilizing the Catholic Church as "far-fetched."

The new, evangelical churches "provide a variety of ways of thinking, and that's what's most important," he says.

Contact the writer: Next week: Prospects for PEACE 714-796-7722 or gdriscoll@ocregister.com

What did they talk about? Anybody knows?

Nyagatare — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:47:34 EST

UPDATED PROGRAMME The 1st Broadcast & Film Africa Conference & Exhibition Kenyatta International Conference Centre, Nairobi Broadcast & Film Convergence in the Digital Age 23-25 September 2008 Programme Workshops How to register Register now and get 25% off

If you register to attend the 1st African Broadcast and Film Conference before 19 September, you are entitled to a 25% discount. For details, send an e-mail quoting the reference BA to Helen Moroney of Aitec: helenm@aitecafrica.com

Companies that will be attending so far:

African Broadcast Network, Kenya Broadcasting Corporation, Kenya Film Commission, Nation TV, Ghana Broadcasting Corporation, GTV, Ghana Telecom (IP-TV), Wide Net, African Telecoms, Media and Technology Fund, Hi-TV, Trend TV, Sonatel Multimedia (VoD TV), Big Ideas Entertainment, Mediae, Discop, Multichoice, Setanta Africa, MTV Networks Africa, Al Jazeera Network, Voice of America, A24 Media, Scopus Video Networks, MediaMerx, BT Media and Broadcast, Globecast, Kenya Data Networks, Broadcast Solutions Inernational, Adobe, Saracen Media, Steadman Group, Southern Africa Direct, Zanzibar International Film Festival, Africalia, UK Film Council, Lola Kenya Screen, Altech UEC, Canis Media, Southern African Media Development Fund, Standard Group, Skyfire Group, Google, Rwanda TV, Broadcast TV and Film Training Centre, Nigeria Radio, Rancard Solutions, Mobile Planet, Television for the Environment, SuperSport Africa, Digital Development Communications, Earthly Creations, AdGroup, Kass FM, Film Corporation of Kenya, Metro TV, TV3, Joy FM, GT-One Touch, SABC, CTV Tanzania, African Films and Music, Gambia Radio and Television Services, Multimedia Broadcasting

PROGRAMME

Conference Chairman: Oscar Beauttah

Conference Programme Director: Russell Southwood

Day 1 – Tuesday 23 September 2008

8.30am Conference Opening

Moderator: Oscar Beauttah, Conference Chairman & Founder of the African Broadcasting Network

Welcome Address
Hon Samuel Poghisio, Minister of Information & Communications

Official Opening
Hon Raila Odinga, Prime Minister

Setting the Agenda
David Waweru, CEO, Kenya Broadcasting Corporation

David Maingi, CEO, Kenya Film Commission

Charles Njoroge, Director-General, Communications Commission of Kenya

10am Refreshment Break 10.30am SESSION 1: Africa’s prospects over the next three years

Based on its report, African Broadcast and Film Markets, Balancing Act’s CEO, Russell Southwood, will look at the shape of the industry across the continent and the changes affecting its future growth.

Responses: The challenges faced by the industry and how it might meet them and the coming impact of convergence

Chris Kirubi, distributor of CNBC in Kenya

Ian Fernandes, MD, Nation Digital Division, Kenya

Charles Kofi Bucknor, Director of Television, Ghana Broadcasting Corporation

1pm Lunch 2.30pm SESSION 2: Pay TV – New kids on the block

Whether it’s delivered by cable, satellite or IP-TV, Pay-TV is changing how Africa’s media ecology functions. It may only have modest numbers of subscribers but it is buying up key rights to both drama and sports events and is beginning to put money into local production. Speakers from the key companies involved in this sector will look at the following issues: the overall potential of the market; how telcos can get involved through IP-TV; the impact of the more recent low-price bouquets; Triple Play offers and the impact their growth will have on other media.

Speakers:

Julian McIntyre, CEO, GTV, UK

Redeemer Kwame, Ghana Telecom and its partner, Wise Net

Richard Bell, CEO African Telecoms, Media and Technology Fund, Kenya

Toyin Subair, CEO, Hi-TV, Nigeria

Uzo Udemba, CEO, Trend TV, Nigeria

Oumar Kande, VoD TV Content, Sonatel Multimedia, Senegal

4pm Refreshment Break 4.30pm SESSION 3: Local content, co-productions and African media markets – Encouraging the growth of quality production

The session will open with a keynote speech from a major African producer and have shorter contributions from four other panellists or agencies involved in encouraging local production. It will cover: local television commissioning budgets, new commissioners of local content, government strategies to encourage local content, film funding sources, creating African co-productions, copyright issues (particularly for music use) and training and skills strategies to improve quality.

Speakers:

Angelo Kinyua, Big Ideas Entertainment, Kenya

David Campbell, Director, Mediae, Kenya

Ronnie Andrews, consultant to GTV, Kenya

Cherise Barsell, Head of Buyer Relations – Africa, Discop, France

Joe Hundah, Director of Operations, m-Net & Managing Director, Multichoice Nigeria

6.30pm Networking Cocktail Reception Day 2 – Wednesday 24 September 2008

9am SESSION 4: Television – Buying and selling international programming

Although local content continues to grow, the staple diet of most African TV stations is international programming. The session will look at negotiating better deals on: international film and drama, sports events and news programming.

Speakers:

Barry Lambert, Chief Executive, Setanta Africa, UK

Claudia Rinke, lawyer, on international rights and competition issues, South Africa

Alex Okosi, Senior VP and MD, MTV Networks Africa, South Africa

Phil Lawrie, Director Global Distribution, Al Jazeera Network, Qatar

Paula Caffrey, Regional Marketing Director - East and Southern Africa, IBB/Voice of America, South Africa

SHOWCASE PRESENTATION A24: The future of local broadcast content distribution

Asif Sheikh, President & CEO, A24 Media, Kenya

COMMERCIAL PRESENTATION Solutions for broadcasters and digital terrestrial TV

Ido Nahmany , Regional Sales Director for Africa, Scopus Video Networks, Israel

10.30am Refreshment Break 11am SESSION 5: Keeping up with changing standards and equipment – Vendor briefing session

Digitalisation will bring massive changes to the equipment and processes needed to produce broadcast television but neither film nor radio will be immune from these changes. Whether you’re in management approving expenditure or at the technical sharp end buying it, there’s a bewildering array of options. In this session, different equipment vendors will brief participants on how they see the technologies changing over the next five years and how their equipment will respond to these changes.

Keynote speaker:

Kiare Nderitu, Technical Manager, Nation TV, Kenya

Briefing speakers:

Michael Hallinan, COO, MediaMerx, USA

John Shonubi, Regional GM, BT Media and Broadcast, UK

Annemarie Meijer, East Africa Manager, Globecast, Kenya

Kai Wulff, CEO, Kenya Data Networks

Steve Areba, Managing Director, Broadcast Solutions International, Kenya

SHOWCASE PRESENTATIONVideo here, there, everywhere: Keeping up with the ever-changing broadcast and film landscape

Mohammed Jogie, Adobe Design Evangelist MEA/Med, Icograda Vice President

1pm Lunch 2.30pm SESSION 6: Advertising – How can broadcast retain and grow its share of the media pie?

Both state and private radio and TV broadcasting rely heavily on advertising as a revenue source. Over the last three years, a number of African countries have had above average economic growth that has led to an increase in available advertising, particularly from mobile operators. Speakers from both advertising agencies and media outlets will look at the prospects of advertising over the next three years.

Issues covered will include: spending in a fragmented media landscape, rate discounting, the effectiveness of different media, the shift of spend between media and the steady rise of Internet and mobile services.

Speakers:

Lenny Nganga, Partner, Saracen Media, Kenya

Joe Otin, Director, Media Monitoring Division, Steadman Group, Kenya

James Boyd McFie, Business School, Strathmore University & Board Member, Standard Group, Kenya

Pierre Van der Hoven, CEO, Southern Africa Direct

4pm Refreshment break 4.30pm SESSION 7: Strategies to promote film production, exhibition and distribution

There has been a greater level of investment in African cinema over the last three years but this has not always resulted in there being more African movies to watch. This session looks at it might be possible to create an ecology that will sustain the production and distribution of African films. Many strategies only invest in production leaving films largely unseen.

The session will look at case studies from Kenya, Morocco, South Africa and the United Kingdom to see what can be achieved with the right strategy. Through the case studies, it teases out what the role of Government funding can be and how limited resources might best be spent.

Speakers:

Martin Mhando, Director, Zanzibar International Film Festival, Tanzania

Bjorn Maes, Artistic Director, Africalia, Belgium

Neil Watson, UK Film Council

Kennedy Duya, Creative Director, Skyfire Group, Kenya

Ongova Ondega, Director, Lola Screen Kenya

Day 3 – Thursday 25 September 2008

9am SESSION 8: The liberalisation of African broadcasting and coming digitalisation

Africa is at the beginning of a wave of liberalisation that is in many ways similar to what has happened in the telecoms field. An increasing number of television and radio stations are being licensed and new opportunities are opening up across the continent. And although most of Africa has not yet got to grips with transition to digital, this will also open up new opportunities.

This session looks at the policy and regulatory implications of what this liberalisation means and will focus on: how content can be regulated; how much media can one market sustain; who controls the carriage of the broadcast signal; international investment; local content quotas; and cross-ownership.

Speakers:

George Twumasi, African Broadcast Networks, UK

Daniel Obam, Digital Transition Committee, Kenya

Anton Lan, Altech UEC, South Africa

Elizabeth Lwanga, Executive Director, Africa Development Assistance and immediate past Resident Director UNDP

Ed Hall, Canis Media, UK

Sadler Kamudyawira, Investment Manager, Southern Africa Media Development Fund

10am Refreshment Break 10.30 SESSION 9: Tomorrow’s Needs, Today’s Imperatives

This session will look at what Africa’s broadcasters need to tackle in order to meet the challenges of tomorrow. Topics covered will include:

Convergence: The relationship between the Internet and broadcasting;
Using SMS responses to build audience involvement;
Professional development and training to raise the quality threshold;
Using radio to expand audience reach in different languages.

Speakers:

Joseph Mucheru, Africa Lead, Google, Kenya

Kije Mugisha, Deputy Director, Rwanda TV

David Johnson, Broadcast TV and Film Training Centre, Kenya

Ike Okere, Nigeria Radio

Kofie Dadzie, CEO, Rancard Solutions, Ghana

Karanja Macharia, CEO, Mobile Planet

Enock Chinyenze, Regional Co-ordinator for Africa, Television for the Environment

12.00 pm SESSION 10: Closing session – Creating an association of African broadcasters

There is currently no effective body that brings broadcasters together across the continent and allows them to address policy issues with government. There are a number of people who are keen to see such a body come into existence and this last session will look at how it might be set up.

POSTCONFERENCE WORKSHOPS Kenyatta International Conference Centre, Nairobi
25 - 26 September 2008

Workshop 1 US$190 Living with fragmenting media markets – the twin pressures of competition and technology

3.00pm – 6.00pm Thursday 25 Sept 2008

Russell Southwood, CEO: Balancing Act, UK

Using a unique set of industry data and audience surveys from all over Africa, Russell Southwood, CEO, Balancing Act (a telecoms, Internet and broadcasting consultancy) will identify the key changes occurring in the broadcast market including:

The proliferation of Free-To-Air TV channels and the impact on the advertising market.
The competition with other media including newspapers, the Internet and SMS.
What content viewers and listeners trust and why.
The current position in terms of the transition to digital and its likely impact on the market.
The weak position of state broadcasters and how they might re-invent the public service role.
The costs of buying international rights and programming and local production costs.
The impact of Pay-TV subscribers and audiences on the Free-To-Air market.
Different types of audiences, different types of advertisers and the issues of language.

He will look at how audiences are fragmenting both across the day and across different channels and media and at different strategies for thriving in rapidly changing circumstances.

The course is taught by Russell Southwood who is the co-author of African Broadcast and Film Markets.

How to register

For further information please contact

Helen Moroney
Email: info@aitecafrica.com
Tel: +44 1480 880774

To register as a delegate, log on to www.aitecafrica.com.

Emerging Technologies

Nyagatare — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:41:55 EST

Lux Research to Present at the National Nano Engineering Conference by NASA Tech Briefs

Lux Research, the leading provider of strategic research and consulting in emerging technologies, will present at the National Nano Engineering Conference 2008 (NNEC) in Boston. Keynote speaker, Jurron Bradley, will host a session on nanotechnology, once an over-hyped technology and now reaching its potential. Participants will see that, like the Internet, nanotechnology was overvalued earlier this decade, and some high profile failures have left manufacturers and investors skeptical. But in reality, nanotechnology has become pervasive in a wide range of industries, with $147 billion worth of nano-enabled products produced in 2007 – a figure set to grow to $3.1 trillion in 2015.

Attendees can find out:

· What market sectors and types of products will nanotech impact the most over the coming years?

· How will different global regions adopt emerging nanotech?

· What is the timeline for emerging nanotechnology’s growth?

· What are the prospects for the major categories of nanomaterials and nanointermediates?

· How is the nanotech R&D funding landscape evolving as emerging nanotech continues to find more applications?

· What is the current state of understanding of environmental health and safety issues surrounding nanomaterials, and how does this influence nanotech’s adoption?

· What strategies and attitudes are corporations and specialists bringing to nanotech R&D today?

Full session details are as follows:

WHO: Jurron Bradley, Senior Analyst
WHAT: Nanomaterials: Stealth Success and Broad Impact
WHEN: Wednesday, November 12th, 2 pm
WHERE: Tech Briefs NNEC 2008, Boston Colonnade Hotel, Boston, MA, November 12th-13th

For more information about NNEC 2008, please visit www.nasatech.com/nano.

About the Lux Executive Summit:

To learn more about emerging technologies, register for the fourth annual Lux Executive Summit on October 19th-21st in Cambridge, MA. The Lux Executive Summit is an elite thought leadership forum for emerging technologies, bringing corporate executives and investment leaders the ideas, connections, and data they need to profit from science-driven innovation. The event is grounded in proprietary analysis from the Lux Research analyst team, joined onstage by more than 50 additional speakers. Capacity is limited at this premier event; full details are available online at www.luxexecutivesummit.com.

Attendees or members of the press interested in meeting with Lux Research’s Jurron Bradley at either conference can contact Carole Jacques (carole.jacques@luxresearchinc.com) 646.649.9585.

About Lux Research:

Lux Research provides strategic advice and on-going intelligence for emerging technologies. Leaders in business, finance, and government rely on us to help them make informed strategic decisions. Through our unique research approach focused on primary research and our extensive global network, we deliver insight, connections, and competitive advantage to our clients. Visit www.luxresearchinc.com for more information.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the following link: UnsubscribeLux Research Inc.
1 Liberty Square
Suite 210
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
US

What do you know about StoryCorps?

Nyagatare — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:39:28 EST

Efolio, a new way of Internet Communication

Nyagatare — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:36:30 EST

Welcome to eFolio Minnesota! Congratulations, you have now completed
your own basic eFolio site. That site can be viewed at:

http://nyagatarevalens.efoliomn.com

To manage the content of your eFolio, go to:

http://nyagatarevalens.efoliomn.com/admin/

Your "Username" will be the email address you used during
registration.

Your "Password" was also entered by you during registration. However,
you may use the "Forgot my password" link (available during login)
if you no longer remember your password.

Using the online administration system, you'll be able to place
images in your portfolio, add sections and nested subsections, upload
audio or video files, change your site's design and much, much more.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

1. Check out our "Design Center". If you want to select a new design
for your eFolio, click on the "Site Management" tab and select
"Design Center" to view the options for other designs. Follow the
instructions in the Design Center for choosing a new design.

2. Add new content to your site. To edit an existing section, click
on the "Content Tools" tab and then click on which section you want to
edit. From there you can add text to either your general section or
to any item within the section. To add a new subsection, click the
"Add a Section" link.

3. Check out the help tools including "QuickTips" and the "Help
Site". QuickTips are listed on the right side of each screen and will
provide you with information on how to use the tool and links to
appropriate sections of our Help Site. The Help Site can be accessed by
clicking the "Help" tab on the top right side of the screen. You can also
contact our Help Desk toll-free at 1-800-456-8519.

Important Information:

Thank you for creating an electronic portfolio with eFolio Minnesota.
Remember that only eligible users, as defined in the Terms of Use,
can legally use this technology. Ineligible sites will be deleted.

From time to time, eFolio Minnesota has important announcements for
its users. Please watch your login screen for future announcements.

Minnesota State Colleges and Universities sponsors eFolio Minnesota.
Please visit www.mnscu.edu for more information about the system.

Media and Information Technology

Nyagatare — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:34:09 EST

Streaming Media Forums now open!

Introducing the Streaming Media Forums

Got a question about encoding your video? Need some help troubleshooting a technical problem? Want some advice about how to launch a new video portal or how to monetize your content? Or just feel like sharing your analysis of the latest developments in streaming media business or technology? Then join the new Streaming Media Forums, and get the discussion started with colleagues from across the industry.

The Streaming Media Forums replace the Streaming Media Discussion Lists, which have been buzzing for ten years with more than 5,000 members. We've got nine different forum topic areas to start, each designed to help you connect with the people in the industry who share your interests and experience:

• Newbies
• Advanced
• Video Content Delivery
• Formats, Codecs, and Players
• Webcasting
• Mobile Video
• Enterprise and Education Video
• Media & Entertainment
• Video Advertising

...more to come

If you're already a member of one of the Streaming Media Discussion lists, you'll need to sign up again for the forums, but you'll be glad you did: Not only will you be able to start talking with your peers immediately, but we'll be archiving all of the content from the discussion lists, and you'll be able to search those archives for answers to your questions. And, you'll still be able to continue your conversations by email; simply sign up with to the RSS feeds for the forums of your choice.

So sign up today at http://forums.streamingmedia.com

NOTICE: Recipients of the Streaming Media Xtra e-newsletter will occasionally receive information on certain products and services.

News about Rwanda

Nyagatare — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:27:37 EST

"Rwanda's Deadliest Secret: Who Shot Down President Habyarimana's Plane?"The most under-investigated of political assassinations
by Tiphaine Dickson
Global Research, November 24, 2008

Remains of Juvénal Habyarimana’s presidential plane, 1994

Retired Colonel Rose Kabuye was recently arrested in Germany, and extradited to France, where she was charged with for complicity in murder in relation to a terrorist enterprise, for her alleged participation in the 1994 shooting down of Juvénal Habyarimana’s presidential plane, and released on bail. She is the first member of Rwandan President Paul Kagame’s inner circle to be charged in connection to what is arguably history’s least-investigated political assassination and terrorist attack.

Rose Kabuye

Who is Rose Kabuye?

Colonel Rose Kabuye was born in Uganda, the child of Rwandan expatriates, many of which left the country after it obtained independence, and following a UN-sponsored referendum abolishing the (Tutsi) monarchy in Rwanda. She attended primary school with many of the current regime’s hard-liners, and like numerous other Rwandan Tutsi exiles living in Uganda, Kabuye joined the Ugandan Army, where she held the rank of Lieutenant, and became the personal attaché of the Chief of Staff. During the same period, Paul Kagame, who attended the U.S. Army Command and Staff College (CGSC) in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, was Chief of Military Intelligence in the Ugandan Army.

President Paul Kagame

On October 1st, 1990, an armed group called the Rwandan Patriotic Front, composed of many Ugandan officers, including Rose Kabuye and Paul Kagame, invaded Rwanda from Uganda, with Ugandan military materiel, and Ugandan soldiers. President Museveni of Uganda claimed that these "rebels" were acting unbeknownst to him, and had "deserted" the Ugandan army; however, there is no account that any of these officers, including Kabuye and Kagame, were ever stripped of their Ugandan military rank, or that they were they ever court-martialed and charged with desertion.

It is said that Rose Kabuye—who charmed foreign journalists by holding her baby on her knee in press conferences held after the RPF invasion of Rwanda-- was imprisoned for several months by Kagame in 1993, for undisclosed reasons.

In April 1994, she was back in Kigali, Rwanda, working in an administrative capacity at the RPF headquarters. French judge Jean-Louis Bruguière accuses her of having abetted the SAM 16 missile attack on the plane carrying Presidents Juvenal Habyarimana of Rwanda, and Cyprien Ntaryamira, of Burundi. The indictment states that it was in her office that the members of the "Network Commando", the RPF cell alleged to have shot down the presidential plane, waited for their orders, on April 6th, 1994.

Rose Kabuye was named "Prefet" (or governor) of Kigali after the tragic event of 1994.

She was later designated to participate in the National Transitional Assembly by Kagame, but was later removed. Colonel Kabuye was subsequently named Chief of Protocol of President Kagame. She is the highest-ranking woman in the Rwandan Patriotic Army.

A Convenient Arrest

Kabuye’s arrest and extradition to France arrest comes at a curious time and is accompanied by circumstances that deserve closer scrutiny.

It appears that, according to both French and German government sources, Rose Kabuye had been warned that if she traveled to Germany, she would be arrested pursuant to a warrant launched by French anti-terrorism judge, Jean-Louis Bruguière; a claim she now denies, expressing instead "surprise" at her arrest. Much has been said of Colonel Kabuye’s willingness to face justice in France so that "the truth be known"; President Paul Kagame has ever referred to "lancing the boil".

It has been speculated that General Kagame has sent his Chief of Protocol—a Lieutenant herself—to attempt, first, to obtain a copy of judge Bruguière’s file, and secondly, to "reveal the weakness" of the case against himself, and inner circle. Indeed, Kabuye is, among those charged, the individual against whom the charges are least severe, and whose implication may seem to be less instrumental than others. This theory is revealing to some extent, but fails to take into account what are high-level diplomatic and political attempts to paradoxically, move away from, and not towards, the truth.

The shooting down of the plane carrying Presidents Habyarimana of Rwanda and Ntaryamira of Burundi triggered the large-scale massacres that followed. The role of this attack on the nightmare that unfolded is obvious, yet over the years, and with the exception of judge Bruguière’s investigation, efforts to elucidate this crime have been frustrated almost every step of the way. An investigation was requested on numerous occasions, by numerous parties; significantly, by the Security Council, almost immediately, whose reminders to the Secretary-General to investigate the circumstances of the attack were not followed; by the Rwandan Government, after the plane was shot down; by the African Union; and following the UN resolution establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities adopted resolution 1994/1 entitled "Situation in Rwanda", calling the attention of the Commission of Experts, established by the Security Council, to the need to inquire into the circumstances of the shooting down of the plane.

In 1997, as defense counsel for Georges Rutaganda before the ICTR, I argued a motion requesting the Prosecutor disclose results of investigations into the shooting down of the Presidential plane, or be directed to undertake investigations, if none had been carried out. The Prosecutor’s representative responded:

"Our responsibility and mandate is not to investigate plane crashes. That's not really our function. Therefore, I would categorically answer this question by saying that, first, we don't have any such investigation. We have not made any such investigation and we don't have any reports. And, secondly, it is not our function, it is not our mandate, to investigate plane crashes or presidents, vice-presidents, or whoever it is. And, therefore, this is really a matter not within our province."

We have since learned from Michael Hourigan, Australian lawyer and one of former Prosecutor Louise Arbour’s lead investigators, that investigations had in fact been carried out (and at the material period when this fact had been denied), but had been shut down by Prosecutor Arbour personally once Hourigan informed her that he had credible evidence that a "network commando" of the RPF had shot down the plane.

The efforts to undermine this investigation over the years are significant, and the testimony of Abdul Ruzibiza, a former RPF officer who testified before the ICTR, sheds substantial light on why that may be. Ruzibiza, one of judge Bruguière’s witnesses, claims to have recanted the totality of his testimony in several telephone interviews given last week. Yet Ruzibiza wrote a book setting out in detail the fact that Kagame’s RPF shot down the plane with the knowledge that armed hostilities would resume in Rwanda, as he was dissatisfied with the political process undertaken after belligerent parties had signed the Arusha Peace Accords. In other words, knowing full well that chaos would descend upon Rwanda (or with incomprehensible recklessness) , Kagame’s strategy was to seize power through the force of arms, and it was guaranteed that war would resume after the assassination of the Rwandan President—and as it happened, the Chief of Staff of the Rwandan Armed Forces, as well as the President of Burundi.

Ruzibiza testified publicly at the ICTR as a defense witness. The Prosecutor’s cross-examination covers 65 pages of transcripts, yet Ruzibiza’s version was unshaken, much less did he change his version, or recant then, when testifying under oath.

But Rose Kabuye’s arrest and transfer to France appears to have suddenly triggered Ruzibiza’s change of heart and complete recantation of his testimony. He now claims that Bruguière’s investigation was a French political machination (which does not explain his UN testimony).

Diplomacy’s Pale Underbelly

Perhaps key in understanding what has happened is the policy adopted by France’s Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner. In January 2008, and apparently desperate to normalize relations with Rwanda (which were suspended by Rwanda after Bruguière launched arrest warrants in 2006), he signed an op ed in Figaro, in which he wrote (my translation):

"I do not know who ordered the April 6th, 1994 attack against President Habyarimana’s plane. But I do not believe, as does the excellent judge Jean-Louis Bruguière, that Paul Kagame knowingly decided to spark the fire that roared over his country. I cannot accept this simplistic and slanderous vision that would have Tutsis be responsible for what happened to them, no more than I can stand to hear certain people claim that there was a double genocide, against both Hutus and Tutsis."

Asked last week [mid-November 2008] whether Kabuye’s indictment in France would present an obstacle to the normalization of relations with Rwanda, he responded: "I believe the contrary."

One can only hope that geo-political concerns will not yet again stand in the way of learning the truth about the circumstances in which President Habyarimana’s plane was shot down by two surface to air missiles in 1994, even if the truth to be discovered, and justice to be done as a result, leads us to indict those who’ve become some of the West’s strongest allies, and who continue, it seems, to wage a path of destruction through Eastern Congo, with complete immunity.

Indeed, if the RPF shot down President Habyarimana’s plane, Kagame can no longer be deemed a heroic military genius who stopped a genocide and should be forever protected and flattered no matter how many crimes he commits. He becomes one of the (main) reasons the massacres unfolded: he could not have failed to know that the assassination of two Hutu presidents, and the Chief of Staff of the Rwandan Armed Forces, during a volatile political transition and in the course of a fragile ceasefire (violated on several occasions by the RPF, as it happens), would unleash violence. If the RPF shot down the plane, they are co-responsible, and this substantially changes the cartoonishly uni-dimensional narrative necessary to provide Kagame with total impunity, and buttress a Western foreign policy on intervention that helped make the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia possible politically.

While Bernard Kouchner may not want to believe the results of a careful investigation carried out by France’s most celebrated anti-terrorism judge, and while Judge Bruguière’s witness, Mr. Ruzibiza, may suddenly see fit to recant a testimony given under oath before a UN institution, the fact remains that there are many other witnesses relied upon in the French investigation. And this most under-investigated of political assassinations, one which sparked a hundred-day massacre, the latter justifying continued war and misery in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and authoritarian rule in Rwanda, must be elucidated, and not quashed yet again, for the sake of geopolitical interests that would impede discovery of truth, and delay justice beyond what can decently be tolerated.

Tiphaine Dickson was lead counsel for Georges Rutaganda before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda from 1997 to 2001. She was the first defense lawyer to present a motion requesting disclosure of the Prosecution’s investigations into the shooting down of President Habyarimana’s plane.

Tiphaine Dickson is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Tiphaine Dickson

Who is leading in Technology Research?

Nyagatare — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:28:28 EST

Technology Pioneer Community

World Economic Forum Announces Technology Pioneers 2008

The World Economic Forum has announced 39 visionary companies selected as Technology Pioneers 2008. The companies’ products and services include identity management on the Internet, understanding of individuals’ genetic information, robotic radiosurgery, pollution control materials, low-cost remote diagnosis solutions, virtual interface technologies, wiki-based projects and next generation business intelligence solutions.

Technology Pioneers Report 2008

2008 Video interviews

Twenty-three of the Technology Pioneers 2008 are US-based companies. Israel and the United Kingdom each boast three; Sweden and Switzerland two each; Canada, France, Germany, India, the Netherlands and Russia, one each. Technology Pioneers are nominated in three main categories: Energy/Environment, Biotechnology/Health and Information Technology.

Read the entire list of Technology Pioneers for 2008, with interviews of the CEOs of selected companies.

View pictures of the Technology Pioneers

Sector
Biotech/Health
Energy/Environment
IT

Biotech/Health

23andMe Inc. USA
Linda Avey, Co-Founder and Co-President
www.23andme.com
23andMe is a privately held biotechnology company that is developing new ways to help people make sense of their own genetic information. Its mission is to be the world's trusted source of personal genetic information. 23andMe was co-founded by Linda Avey and Anne Wojcicki.

Accuray Incorporated, USA
Euan S. Thompson, President and Chief Executive Officer
www.accuray.com
As the global leader in the field of robotic radiosurgery, Accuray Incorporated develops and markets the CyberKnife Robotic Radiosurgery System, the next generation in radiosurgery designed to treat tumors anywhere in the body with sub-millimeter accuracy.
The company's CyberKnife System is the firts and only commercially available system to use intelligent robotics to continuously track, detect and correct for tumor and patient movement throughout the treatement.

Anecova SA, Switzerland
Martin Velasco, Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
www.anecova.com
The company has developed a major innovative technology and is poised to bring a real breakthrough product and methodology for the treatment of infertility. A major advantage of the leading-edge technique is that it constitutes a return to a solution which is closer to the natural process. In vivo rather than in vitro assisted reproductive technology: Anecova is developing a promising approach for the future. Anecova has now announced proven results which were better than anticipated. This is a major challenge, as sterility now affects one in ten couples, or more than 80 million people throughout the world.

InSightec Ltd. Israel
Jackob Vortman, President and Chief Executive Officer
www.insightec.com
InSightec was founded in 1999 when GE Healthcare (then GE Medical Systems) and Elbit Medical Imaging transferred their proprietary technology to the company to enable it to concentrate on developing the promising MR guided focused ultrasound surgery both companies had investigated. Since then, InSightec has invested over $100 million in research and development. The company holds over 30 patents with additional intellectual property pending.

mondoBIOTECH AG, Switzerland
Fabio Cavalli, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Business Architect
www.mondobiotech.com
mondoBIOTECH AG, a private Swiss breathing swiss air™ biotech company headquartered in Basel is focused on development of treatment options for fatal and rare lung diseases. In addition to PAH, the company has a variety of clinical Phase II studies in pulmonary diseases ongoing. Video interview

Neurosynaptic Communications Pvt Ltd, India
Sameer S. Sarwakar, Chief Executive Officer
www.neurosynaptic.com
Neurosynaptic Communications is a telemedicine solutions company which has developed a remote low cost diagnostic kit to measure four primary parameters, viz temperature, blood pressure, ECG and heartbeat (stethescope) for teleconsultation. n-Logue proposes to deploy this kit in select locations to facilitate a remote telemedicine services. Interview (PDF)

NuLens Ltd. Israel
Ori Gal , Chief Executive Officer
www.nu-lens.com
NuLens researches, develops and markets technologies for the ophthalmic markets. The company is currently developing a new Accommodative Intraocular Lens (IOL) technology with the potential to provide over 10 diopters of accommodative power. This exciting innovation, based on the patents of Dr. Joshua Ben Nun, will prove to be the first intraocular lens to provide real, comfortable, and lasting accommodation for near, intermediate and far distances - the way nature intended. Not only does it restore eyesight, it provides better eyesight than ever before.

Oxitec, UK
Luke Alphey, Co-Founder and Chief Scientist
www.oxitec.com
Oxitec Limited was founded in 2002 to develop and commercialize leading edge science and technology invented at the University of Oxford. Oxitec is located near Oxford in the United Kingdom and employs an energetic, professional team of 25 people. Oxitec has developed and patented a novel technology platform which promises a step change in the cost-effectiveness and breadth of application of the Sterile Insect Technique. This platform is called RIDL® and is the basis for providing effective and environment friendly pest control to agriculture and public health. Oxitec has generated product candidates for four insect pest control markets, and has advanced its lead candidate to the final testing phase of the development pathway in the USA. Interview (PDF) I Video interview

RainDance Technologies, USA
Jonathan M. Rothberg, Co-Founder and Chairman
www.raindancetechnologies.com
RainDance Technologies is a nanotechnology company devoted to discovering, developing, and commercializing the precise manipulation of minute amounts of fluids in microfluidics devices for a variety of industrial and research applications. After CuraGen and 454 life Sciences, it's the third New Haven-area bioscience company started by its chairman, Jonathan Rothberg. Interview I Video interview

Resverlogix Corp, Canada
Donald McCaffrey, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer
www.resverlogix.com
Resverlogix Corp is a leading biotechnology company working toward the development of novel therapies for unmet medical markets. Its goal is to improve patients’ longevity and quality of life by becoming a leader in the research, development and commercialization of products for cardiovascular disease, cancer and fibrotic conditions. Video interview

Rincon Pharmaceuticals Inc. USA
Bruce Steel, Founder and Chief Executive Officer
www.rinconpharma.com
Rincon Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the novel use of eukaryotic algae as a production system for recombinant proteins. Their commercialization strategy involves a combination of internal product development and collaborations to develop and manufacture products for partners. We have ongoing partnerships with global leaders in therapeutic protein development. Our technology was initially developed at The Scripps Research Institute and is protected by significant intellectual property. We are based in San Diego and privately held.

SiGNa Chemistry, Inc. USA
Michael Lefenfeld, President and Chief Executive Officer
www.signachem.com
SiGNa Chemistry is an early stage company developing unique solutions to compelling chemistry problems through the power of interdisciplinary science. SiGNa™ products have been found to work as powerful reducing agents that work at room temperature and as convenient sources of clean molecular hydrogen. By capitalizing on the many powerful applications of SiGNa Chemistry's technologies, such as alkali metals absorbed into various oxide materials, SiGNa is positioned to develop and deliver a host of solutions to a wide range of scientific applications and industries. These advanced materials will deliver new products to academic and industrial markets as diverse as pharmaceutical synthesis, petroleum refining, organometallics, catalysis, and hydrogen energy.

Energy/Environment

Cima NanoTech Inc. USA
Jon Brodd, Chief Executive Officer
www.cimananotech.com
Cima NanoTech is an advanced materials company leveraging its unique, patented nanomaterial technologies with customers to deliver next generation solutions today. With commercial production capabilities, proven technical performance, and a team focused on delivering value to its customers, Cima NanoTech offers a technology platform upon which next generation solutions are built. The company currently focuses on the electronics industry, where manufacturers value the benefits of low temperature substrates, finer component line resolution, and other unique attributes made possible by nanomaterials. Cima NanoTech is based in the US, with its R&D center in Caesarea, Israel, and a commercial manufacturing facility in Hiroshima, Japan. Additional laboratory facilities in Korea, Japan, and the US support the work of the Israel lab and enable close, local partnerships with electronics manufacturers to meet their specific needs. Interview (PDF) Video interview

fluXXion B.V. The Netherlands
Thijs Bril, Chief Executive Officer
www.fluxxion.com
fluXXion is an Eindhoven, Netherlands based high technology company applying tried and tested technology from the semiconductor and micro system industries, to the design and manufacture of revolutionary new micro filtration membrane products for the bulk and analytical liquid filtration markets. The basic micro machining technology was originally developed by Royal Philips Electronics in the Netherlands, for the manufacture of complex micro structured products. fluXXion has built up a significant application know-how in micro filtration over the last years.

Gridpoint Inc. USA
Peter L. Corsell, President and Chief Executive Officer
www.gridpoint.com
GridPoint provides a Smart Grid platform that aligns the interests of electric utilities, consumers and the environment. The platform provides utilities with an intelligent network of distributed, clean technology resources that controls load, stores energy and produces power. Utilities efficiently balance demand and supply by discharging stored power during peak periods, reducing customers' non-essential loads, optimizing baseload generation assets and relieving stress on T&D assets. Utilities avoid the regulatory, environmental and "time-to-build" hurdles associated with building new power plants while fueling the mass adoption of renewable energy, reducing carbon emissions and conserving fuel, capital and land resources.

Hycrete, Inc. USA
David G. Rosenberg, Founder and Chief Executive Officer
www.hycrete.com
Concrete provide concrete producers, builders, designers and owners with modern concrete construction Systems that deliver cost savings, schedule acceleration, and sustainable construction solutions. They currently focus on large projects demanding mission-critical subgrade, grade, and super grade water and corrosion protection. Applications include deep foundation slabs and walls, podium and plaza decks, roof, parking and tunnel structures. The Hycrete concrete System provides a high value, sustainable approach to waterproofing and corrosion protection through an evolution in performance concrete construction.

LS9 Inc. USA
Robert Walsh, President
www.ls9.com
LS9, Inc., the Renewable Petroleum CompanyTM, is a privately-held biotechnology company pursuing industrial applications of synthetic biology to produce proprietary biofuels. LS9's products, currently under development, are designed to closely resemble petroleum derived fuels, but be renewable, clean, domestically produced, and cost competitive. In addition to biofuels, LS9 will also develop industrial biochemicals for specialty applications. LS9 is headquartered in San Carlos, California, in the heart of Silicon Valley.

Nanostellar Inc. USA
Pankaj Dhingra, President and Chief Executive Officer
www.nanostellar.com
Nanostellar, Inc. uses a unique nanotechnology methodology to develop precious-metals containing materials for the automotive and stationary power industries, enabling these industries to meet stringent diesel emissions-control requirements mandated in Europe, the U.S. and Asia. The company delivers nano-engineered catalyst materials that reduce exhaust emissions and increase effectiveness of precious metals in these catalysts by 25%-30%. Nanostellar's Rational Catalyst Design methodology combines computation materials science, novel synthesis and chemical engineering to aid in the rapid development of new materials.
A clean-technology company, Nanostellar is committed to delivering revolutionary pollution control materials that will deliver cleaner air and fewer environmental toxins.

Primafuel, USA
Brook Porter, Co-Founder and Executive Vice-President
www.primafuel.com
Primafuel is a private company developing the technologies and the production infrastructure for low-carbon and ultimately zero-carbon fuels. The global demand for transportation fuels continues to grow, resulting in mounting economic, environmental and social costs. Biofuels offer an important part of the solution, with dramatic potential to reduce our dependency on fossil-fuels. Primafuel is committed to making biofuels widely available, affordable and sustainable. Video interview

Silver Spring Networks, USA
Scott Lang, President and Chief Executive Officer
www.silverspringnet.com
Silver Spring Networks creates the critical networking infrastructure for the Smart Grid, known as a Smart Energy Network. Based on the Internet Protocol (IP) suite, it addresses the challenges of running multiple applications and devices on the same network and dramatically improves efficiency, lowers costs and ensures the reliable delivery of services. This smarter, more efficient grid could cut the growth rate of worldwide energy consumption by more than half over the next 15 years and drastically reduce carbon emissions. Video interview

SkySails GmbH & Co. KG, Germany
Stephan Wrage, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Executive Board
www.skysails.de
It is SkySails aim to reduce fuel consumption of modern shipping by the utilisation of environmentally friendly, free-of-charge wind energy. For this SkySails is developing, producing and distributing a towing kite wind propulsion system that is world patent pending. As a result, ship operation will become more profitable, safer and independent of declining oil reserves.

Unidym Inc, USA
George Grüner, Founder and Chief Science Officer
www.unidym.com
Unidym leads in the development, manufacture, and application of carbon nanotubes (CNTs). Unidym’s first CNT electronics product, already recognized as a true innovation, is a transparent, conductive film that replaces films currently used in touch screens and displays made with indium tin oxide(ITO). Building directly on the work of Nobel Prize winner Dr. Richard Smalley and Distinguished Professor George Grüner at UCLA, Unidym is at the forefront of the growing markets in printable and flexible electronics. Unidym partners with and licenses intellectual property (IP) to a growing number of companies who are aggressivelyexploring other uses of CNTs in various markets.

AdMob Inc. USA
Omar Hamoui, Founder and Chief Executive Officer
www.admob.com
AdMob is the world's largest mobile advertising marketplace. Founded in 2006, AdMob allows advertisers to reach their customers on the mobile Web and publishers to increase the value of their mobile sites. AdMob offers both advertisers and publishers the ability to target and personalize advertising to their customers in over 160 countries.

Arteris, Inc. France/USA
Charles Janac, President and Chief Executive Officer
www.arteris.com
Arteris S.A. is a start-up based in Paris, France and San José, California, U.S.A. The company was founded in 2003 by a group of semiconductor industry veterans. The company’s focus is on the next-generation of challenges associated with System-on-Chip (SoC) design: on-chip communications, or Network-on-Chip (NoC). Arteris is backed by an international set of venture capitalists and its management team brings experience from the communications, semiconductor, EDA, and IP industries.

Clearwire Corporation, USA
Craig O. McCaw, Founder and Chairman
www.clearwire.com
Clearwire clearly has tomorrow in mind. The company operates a wireless broadband network designed for next-generation communications content and services. It offers high-speed Internet access in nearly three dozen markets in the US (primarily along the West Coast and in Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and the Midwest). It also offers services in Brussels, Belgium; Dublin, Ireland; in Denmark, through Danske Telecom; and in Mexico, through partner MVSNet. Clearwire was founded in 2003 and is controlled by wireless pioneer Craig McCaw (founder of McCaw Cellular, which he sold to AT&T for $11.4 billion in 1997). Clearwire launched its operations the following year.

Garlik Limited, UK
Tom Ilube, Chief Executive Officer
www.garlik.com
Garlik is a new company from the founding CEO of Egg plc Mike Harris, former Egg CIO Tom Ilube and British Computer Society president Professor Nigel Shadbolt. As the first company to develop a web-scale commercial application of semantic technology, Garlik will enable consumers to find and understand what personal information is in the public domain about them and manage how their identities appear online. Interview (PDF) Video interview

Imaginatik, UK
Mark Turrell, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer
www.imaginatik.com
Imaginatik is the long-time leader in enterprise Idea Management. Its flagship solution, Idea Central, is designed to elicit ideas and insights from employees and extended enterprise partners, provide a shared collaborative space to develop ideas, and is equipped with sophisticated tools to evaluate and select the top ideas for implementation. Idea Central has won numerous awards, and is in use at clients such as Georgia-Pacific, W. R. Grace, ChevronTexaco, Bayer AG, and Goodyear Tire & Rubber. Imaginatik's software and services have helped clients discover significant sources of additional revenue, as well as tangible cost savings, process improvements and an increased product pipeline.

Innovative Silicon Inc. USA / Switzerland
Pierre Fazan, Chairman, Founder and Chief Technology Officer
www.z-ram.com
Innovative Silicon (ISi) was founded in 2002 to develop and license the Z-RAM® ultra-dense memory technology. Z-RAM® is a new concept in memory technology: unlike conventional SRAM, which uses 6 transistors, or DRAM, which uses 1 transistor and a complicated capacitor, Z-RAM® uses a single transistor – and nothing else – as the memory bitcell. The density and simplicity of this technology makes Z-RAM® the lowest-cost memory technology – both as stand-alone memory and as embedded memory on microprocessors and other leading-edge semiconductors.

Kayak.com, USA
Paul English, Co-Founder and Chief Technology Officer
www.kayak.com
Kayak Buzz was the first airfare history tool when launched in November 2005. Several enhancements later, Kayak Buzz displays the lowest fares to the 25 most popular destinations from a traveler’s hometown, as found by Kayak users. Consumers can further specify the fare buzz for a region: World cities, US, Europe, Caribbean, South America, Asia, Africa and Australia/Oceania. The Buzz product was further enhanced last summer with the launch of Best Fare History, an option to view up to 100 fare/itinerary combinations for a specific city pair found by other Kayak users over the past 36 hours and Best Fare Trend Graph which charts pricing for city/date pairs found by Kayak.com users over the past 90 days.

Lumio Inc. USA
Jonathan Curtiss, President and Chief Executive Officer
www.lumio.com
Lumio develops, patents, and sell intelligent optical modules for data input and output based around a core suite of virtual interface technologies. Lumio’s focus is in empowering OEM’s, system integrators, and system designers to integrate low cost, low overhead, and low foot print components that enable any flat surface to become interactive, employing a range of unique and ubiquitous Human Machine Interface (HMI) solutions. Established in May 2000 by Boaz Arnon and Amichai Turm to capitalize on the unique idea of creating a virtual keyboard interface for mobile data users; the Company has since dramatically deepened and broadened its IP portfolio.

MEDIO SYSTEMS, USA
Brian Lent, President and Chief Executive Officer
www.medio.com
Medio Systems, Inc. is the leading provider of mobile search and advertising solutions that help mobile operators implement the best customer experience and allow advertisers to reach their intended target audiences. Created specifically for mobile, Medio Mobile Search combines an intuitive, effortless user interface with powerful recommendation and personalization technologies.

Meraki Inc. USA
Sanjit Biswas, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer
www.meraki.com
Meraki Networks, Inc. builds products for wireless community networks. It offers an integrated package of software, hardware, and management services to build mesh networks. The company’s platform is used to connect communities, apartment complexes, or business districts to the Internet. Its Meraki Manage, is a Web-hosted service that enables clients to setup and monitor the Meraki network. The company’s access device, the Meraki Mini, is a small indoor access point designed for mesh networking. Its Meraki Mesh firmware allows extending one or more Internet connections through a network of Meraki repeaters. The company was founded in 2006 and is based in Mountain View, California.

Polar Rose AB, Sweden
Nikolaj Nyholm, Chief Executive Officer
www.polarrose.com
Sweden based Polar Rose is the developer of automatic facial recognition with 3D modeling for visual search applications. Polar Rose was founded with unique expertise in automatic 3D modeling and pattern recognition pioneered by the company’s founder and CTO, Dr. Jan Erik Solem. Currently Polar Rose is in closed beta and will be officially launching its face matching product, called Bloom, later this year that will sort and add context to the Web of photos. Interview (PDF) I Video interview

QlikTech International, USA
Mans Hultman, Chairman
www.qliktech.com
QlikTech is the global leader in next-generation business intelligence solutions, offering sophisticated in-memory analysis and reporting solutions for enterprise and individual customers. QlikTech supports an open information architecture, where business information is broadly, affordably and quickly available to those who need it. QlikTech’s flagship product, QlikView, uses next-generation patented in-memory association technology to make sophisticated analysis dramatically easier to deploy, use and maintain. QlikView’s click driven, visually interactive interface is simple for end users to learn and use. Video interview

Roundbox, USA
Dennis Specht, Founder, Chief Executive Officer, President and Co-Chairman
www.roundbox.com
Roundbox Inc. is a leading provider of mobile broadcast software solutions. The company provides client and server software spanning multiple network technologies to mobile operators. Roundbox's products help mobile operators take maximum advantage of broadcast and multicast to enhance both existing revenue-generating services as well as deploy new, differentiated ones. Roundbox is a private company based in Florham Park, New Jersey and is funded by premier venture capital firms.

SpeedBit Ltd. Israel
Ariel Yarnitsky, Chief Executive Officer
www.speedbit.com / www.videoaccelerator.com / www.fileratings.com / www.fileflyer.com
SpeedBit Ltd. was founded in 1999 in Haifa in the north of Israel. First launching Download Accelerator Plus with patented acceleration technology (now with 138 million registered users), SpeedBit continued by creating SpeedBit Video Accelerator for YouTube & iTunes, FileRatings.com and FileFlyer.com, with over over 60,000 new users joining the SpeedBit network every day. SpeedBit Ltd. is backed by Pitango venture capital and Yossi Vardi, the founding investor of ICQ the pioneering instant messenger that was sold to AOL in 1998, and managed by Ariel Yarnitsky, the former general manager of ICQ.

Transclick Inc. USA
Robert E. Levin, Chief Executive Officer
www.transclick.com
Transclick is a wireless web services infrastructure company enabling customers to communicate via email, SmartPhone text or instant messaging with real-time language translation in 16 languages from any mobile phone, corporate enterprise portal or wireless PDA. Transclick is post-revenue with Qualcomm, Verizon Wireless, the US Army; 2007/8 30+ carriers. Interview (PDF) I Video interview

Wikimedia Foundation Inc. USA
Florence Devouard, Chair
www.wikimedia.org
The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is a nonprofit charitable organization dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge. The Wikimedia Foundation operates some of the largest collaboratively edited reference projects in the world, including Wikipedia, one of the 15 most visited websites in the world.

Yandex LLC, Russia
Arcady Volozh, Chief Executive Officer
www.yandex.ru / http://company.yandex.com
Yandex is the largest portal of the Russian Internet today, which offers its users key internet services. According to research studies conducted by Gallup Media, FOM and Comcon, Yandex is the largest resource of the Russian Internet, based on audience size and internet penetration. Among services offered by Yandex are: search engine, directory of sites by themes, free e-mail, latest news, Spam protection system (Spamooborona), free web hosting (Narod), encyclopedia, dictionaries, comparison shopping system (Market) and many more. By 2006, our audience reached 4 million visitors a day, and it continues to

An example of a Nobel prize Winner! Yunus

Nyagatare — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:15:52 EST

Grameen Foundation : What we do : Technology Programs

Technology Programs

Why Focus on Technology?
Technology increases the efficiency of microfinance institutions (MFIs), eventually resulting in lower interest rates to borrowers and new loan programs that attract additional clients and expand opportunities for the MFI and the borrower to become self sufficient. We are transforming the microfinance sector through innovations and collaborations that improve the delivery of financial services to the poor and integrate microfinance with the global financial system.

Information and communication technology (ICT) provides unparalleled opportunities to improve the lives of the world’s poorest people. It can create jobs, improve access to health care, education and other services, and connect far-flung communities to each other which can boost local economies. However, without a conscious effort to develop and champion breakthrough applications of ICT to reduce global poverty, its potential can go unrealized.

The Grameen Technology Center, an initiative of Grameen Foundation, was inspired by some of the early successes of technology-oriented Grameen companies in Bangladesh that were established by Professor Muhammad Yunus. The Center leverages the power of microfinance and technology to create innovative and sustainable solutions that will enable MFIs to empower their clients to escape poverty more rapidly. It focuses on technology that:

makes microfinance operations more efficient
creates income-generating opportunities for the rural poor
provides poor communities access to information and resources

"An individual poor person is an isolated island by himself and herself. IT can end that isolation overnight."
Professor Muhammad YunusInformation and communication technologies have a real impact on social development and are continuously advancing. Grameen Foundation is making a significant impact on communities around the world by channeling and adapting technologies developed by the private sector and putting them to work for the microfinance movement. We invite you to explore these pages to learn more about Grameen Technology Center’s technology focus, advisory council and partnerships, and how our products and projects are changing lives around the world:

Our Mifos initiative is building microfinance software that will improve MFI efficiency and serve as a universal platform for further innovation.
Village Phone uses microfinance to bring much-needed telecommunications to the world's rural poor.
Village Phone Direct is a micro franchise approach to Village Phone that allows microfinance institutions to directly and independently develop a Village Phone Product for their clients.
Application Laboratory seeks to expand the power of existing technologies to serve the poor.
Our Partner Technology Support team provides a full range of technical assistance, consulting, assessment and advising services for our MFI partners' Management Information System (MIS) needs. The Partner Technology team has also produced an MIS Toolkit to help guide MFIs worldwide in their information systems projects.

Technology in poor communities

Nyagatare — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:09:02 EST

Monday, September 24, 2007 Empowering Technologies for the Developing World M. Bernardine Dias of TechBridgeWorld helps communities use technology to help themselves. By Erica Naone

Helping the developing world isn't as easy as sending money and experts. Local values and customs have to be considered, and ultimately, the community has to become able to guide itself. M. Bernardine Dias is the director of Carnegie Mellon University's TechBridgeWorld, a group that partners with developing communities to create sustainable technological solutions to problems within those communities. In advance of her appearance at the Emerging Technologies Conference at MIT later this week, Technology Review talked with Dias about the role that technology can play in the developing world.

Technology Review: How does TechBridgeWorld use technology to help people in developing communities?

Bernardine Dias: The goal of what we do through TechBridgeWorld is to open up conversations with people living in underserved communities, and really start to talk about their needs and the ways that technology can meet these needs. We find ways to collaboratively build solutions to these problems. We have two golden rules in how we operate. We never go anywhere unless we're invited--that translates to having a strong partner within that community. Second, what we do is always framed as a sharing process. We only go in as experts of technology, not to try to dictate where the community should head or what they should be doing, or should not be doing, on a larger scale. It's about empowerment rather than just dumping technology.

We provide infrastructure [and find] the right partners in a given community. We help students and faculty to formulate a problem into a project, find the right partners, and look for funding. We also introduced courses that teach students to be good technology consultants, and to understand especially issues of poverty: what does it mean to live on $2 or less a day? What are the challenges it brings if you want to introduce technology? What is the real role technology can play? As a global community, I would say we don't really have good answers to some of these questions.

TR: You emphasize forming partnerships. Does the work benefit people at both ends of the partnership?

BD: We approach this in terms of sharing rather than being a one-way conduit. While part of our goal is to expose developing communities to what technology could do for them, it goes beyond that. What we would really like to do is encourage and help create technology experts in these communities, because they have the advantage of knowing in much more depth what the community needs and its challenges. But we also have things to learn from them. At a talk I gave at NASA, someone suggested that in space exploration, technology is sent to areas that don't have a power grid. While the level of funding is very different, obviously, there are certain things in common with developing communities. So if you want to do drilling in space, maybe there's some technology that can be shared with drilling for water in Africa. The whole point is to start people thinking more broadly about what kind of technologies are applicable.

TR: You grew up in Sri Lanka. Has your background influenced your work in this area?

BD: It was actually the primary motivation. I grew up with a very strong passion for technology. I really wanted to learn more about it because it seemed like any problem Sri Lanka faced when I was growing up, we used to fly in experts. They would come up with a solution, and often it didn't really reflect our cultural needs or traditions. Often it failed, but we would spend all this money on it. I grew up with this feeling that we really needed Sri Lankan technologists and technology experts so we didn't have to fly people in. Probably since I was about 10 years old, this idea has been formulating in my mind.

TR: How do you bring new technologies to a community in a way that's comfortable for people unfamiliar with the technology?

BD: We were working at a school for the blind, where we designed a Braille tutor to help students learn to read and write Braille. There was a wire that connected the stylus to the rest of the tutor, and, when we got there, we found out that the kids were really scared of it. We learned that in India, blind children are taught to stay away from wires. One of our students working on the project took the stylus and rubbed it on her face with a child holding it, to show that it was safe. To communicate with different groups, you sometimes have to come up with very different approaches.

TR: Could you tell me one of TechBridgeWorld's success stories?

BD: We went to Ghana two summers ago, and helped design and teach the first robotics course in that country at the university level. Last year, two of the students who took our course graduated and formed a startup company. They're making intelligent wallets, which allow you to do financial transactions through your phone. They contacted us for additional references on certain topics. That is really exciting--empowering a whole new generation there to look at things through different eyes.

Tehnology and Obama Administration

Nyagatare — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:00:07 EST

A new Congress, a new approach to technology? (CNET)

Posted on Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:00AM EST

Presidential elections may capture the public's attention, as Barack Obama's victory did last week, but the less glamorous work in the U.S. Congress tends to prove more important for technology topics.

In general, much of today's current congressional leadership will continue unchanged into the next, albeit with some complications such as Obama's departure and some narrow Senate races including Minnesota's. Whatever the outcome, Democrats are likely to be newly emboldened and may be eager to approve legislation that stalled in the 110th Congress, including spyware regulations and a shield law that would protect some bloggers.

The outlook is complicated by some shuffling in House and Senate committee leadership, which is expected to take place next week. Two politicians are jockeying over chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which includes green tech and Internet regulation in its portfolio. And increased interest in intellectual property issues in the House Judiciary Committee has led John Conyers (D-Mich.) to reorganize a key subcommittee.

Same issues, new players Energy-related legislation will be one area of expected focus, though a continued economic downturn could divert attention or Treasury funds.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "has taken a personal leadership role in identifying and advancing a house innovation agenda, which didn't really get as far as it should have," said Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. "Republicans are generally less oriented to pro-active policies to spur innovation--they're more interested in reducing barriers to innovation."

Other issues expected to be addressed again next year include Net neutrality, consumer privacy issues such as regulation over electronic medical records, and patent reform.

In the House, look for Conyers and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the Telecommunications and the Internet panel in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, to take the lead. On the Senate side, senators like Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) are likely to remain focused on tech-related issues.

Some new members are expected to bolster the Democrats' commitment to tech issues, "particularly Mark Warner who is very technology savvy," said Atkinson. Warner, the former Democratic governor of Virginia, was elected to fill the seat of retiring Republican Senator John Warner.

After the election, Computer and Communications Industry Association President Ed Black praised the new Democratic senators for their tech-friendly platforms, noting that Mark Udall of Colorado and Kay Hagan of North Carolina both pledged their support for Net neutrality during their campaigns.

Some uncertainties exist on the tech policy front, like who will chair the Senate Republican High Tech Task Force since Chair Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) lost his seat last week. A senior aide to the task force said Republican leadership has yet to determine who will chair the group, but its agenda will remain focused on issues like broadband deployment, immigration reform, and securing U.S. competitiveness in the global high-tech marketplace.

Additionally, some Democratic agenda items, which call for more spending, and presumably higher taxes to fund those projects, could fall by the wayside if moderate Democrats insist on maintaining a pay-go system.

Musical chairsIt will be more clear how Congress intends to address tech policy once the Democratic caucus decides upon committee chairs next week.

"In both chambers, the committee makeup plays a significant role in what issues come forward," said Betsy Mullins, vice president of government and political affairs for TechNet, a bipartisan technology lobbying group. "Having certain champions and people who understand your issues can only help you."

In the senate, Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) is expected to replace Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) as chair of the Appropriations Committee, leaving open his chairmanship of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.V.) would logically assume the leadership role of the Commerce Committee, though his office declined to comment on the subject. In that position, he would assume responsibility for Congressional oversight of the digital television transition, which many expect to be fraught with complications.

The committee has jurisdiction over a number of tech issues, and Mullins said Rockefeller would probably push forward broadband deployment legislation, as he has tried to do for years, and would encourage public-private partnerships in scientific research.

Critical subcommittees in the Senate Commerce Committee could face big changes as well. The science, technology, and innovation subcommittee is currently chaired by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who is rumored to be a potential candidate for a cabinet position in the next administration.

It's also possible the next Commerce chair could reinstate the communications subcommittee, which Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) eliminated in 2005, greatly reducing the influence in the committee of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Kerry would be in line to assume that leadership role, but Dorgan--a strong Net neutrality proponent--could be a more likely choice, some have said.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) has been a natural Silicon Valley ally as chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The committee may function differently even if Bingaman remains in that role, however, with the retirement of ranking Republican member Pete Domenici who, as the other senator from New Mexico, worked closely with Bingaman. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), as the next-most senior Republican member of the committee, may fill the GOP leadership role.

Power play On the House side, a battle is brewing over the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who currently chairs the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is bidding to replace Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) as head of Energy and Commerce. Dingell, who has chaired the committee for 28 years, is defending his seat with strong support from other Democrats.

Waxman's challenge is a "stunning" development, said a representative from the communications industry, given Dingell's longstanding history in the committee. While both congressmen are considered to be smart and tough politicians, he said, Dingell is more business-friendly, which could be important, given the state of the economy.

As an ally of the auto industry, Dingell does not always win the approval of environmental groups but is seen as being able to work across party lines. In October, he introduced legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions with Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.).

"Dingell has a long record of fostering communications and technology issues," said an Energy and Commerce Committee spokesperson, that includes promoting competition among communications service providers and overseeing preparation of the digital TV transition.

Still, Waxman said in a statement (PDF), "My record shows that I have the skill and ability to build consensus and deliver legislation that improves the lives of all Americans."

The House Judiciary Committee is also in flux, now that Conyers has decided to restructure the courts, the Internet, and intellectual property subcommittee. Intellectual property will now be under the jurisdiction of the full committee; antitrust topics get their own subcommittee.

Subcommittee Chair Howard Berman (D-Calif.) announced earlier this year he would give up his position to chair the House Foreign Affairs Committee instead, so the vacancy created an convenient time to restructure the subcommittee.

A Judiciary staff member said interest in intellectual property issues has grown dramatically in the full committee, so the change gives more members a chance to weigh in on the issue. He said it is still undetermined who will chair the subcommittee.

There has been speculation that another leadership role critical to technology could end up changing hands in a House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee.

Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a politician prone to grandstanding on topics like the iPhone and AT&T, may be interested in giving up that spot in order to chair the energy and air quality subcommittee, some insiders believe. The move would allow him to more effectively work on energy legislation. Markey also chairs the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Markey's office declined to comment about the chairmanships.

Interesting Appoach to Information Technology!

Nyagatare — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:26:48 EST

Published on Enough (http://www.enoughproject.org) The Price of Prevention: Getting Ahead of Global Crises By cjohnson Created 11/13/2008 - 08:38

Date: 11/13/2008Source: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/11/price_of_prevention.htmlAuthor: Gayle Smith, David Sullivan, Andrew Sweet

The next president will face an unprecedented array of foreign policy demands upon taking office in January. The urgent national security challenges are the most visible among them, with Iraq and Afghanistan topping the list. But Pakistan, the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflagration, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Sudan, Somalia, and the global financial crisis will also cry out for immediate attention.

Layered on top of these immediate challenges are growing threats that provide the backdrop for new and more complex crises—climate change, resource scarcity, the global food and energy crises, urbanization, and sweeping demographic shifts. These trends are placing enormous pressure on the ability of individuals, families, and communities to save, plan, and in some cases survive. Combined, they threaten to spawn sweeping insecurity that could further undermine global stability.

The next administration will also be compelled to manage a host of transnational threats that transcend borders and undermine our collective global security, including terrorism, global pandemics, money laundering, illicit trade, and crime and drug syndicates. Taken together, global trends and transnational threats serve as force multipliers that expand poverty and fuel conflicts.

The challenges facing the United States are so many and so diverse that the only way the next president can avoid leaping from crisis to crisis is to position America to get ahead of the curve. The next president can enhance our standing in the world, sustain our security, and protect our investments by implementing robust prevention strategies to complement the foreign policies that are, due to necessity, geared toward immediate crises. By failing to do so, the next president would ensure that our sustainable security remains elusive.

Merely reacting to global crises is a costly strategy in terms of both human lives and direct financial costs. In order to get out ahead and prepare itself to face the challenges of the 21st century, the United States should:

Fully integrate prevention into the national strategies that guide foreign policy formulation and implementation.

Build an integrated, interagency mechanism for long-range strategic planning that is tied directly to the allocation of resources.

Organize the government to support prevention and ensure coherence across the executive branch.

Invest intelligence, diplomatic, and economic resources in the most vulnerable areas and regions.

Re-engage with the international community, and improve and then support international treaties and norms.

Develop new tools and capabilities for crisis management.

Address the resource and staff shortages of civilian agencies, particularly the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development.

Source URL: http://www.enoughproject.org/reports/price_of_prevention

My take on Rwanda-DRC conflict!

Nyagatare — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:52:11 EST

Hi Everyone,

I wouldn't write much about this subject, because I know right now that, interested people know the reality of what is going on over there, between Rwanda and DRC.

Just a few words to diplomats and politicians involved in this conflict: Killing or doing harm to innocent civilians, is intoralable, no matter what reason you are claiming. You will be asked one day your part in this horrible act, don't claim you were not informed. The justice will prevail, when western democraties, the only hope for now, will recognized their involvement and come back to the reality.

Populations involved, don't spread hate to your fellow citizen, love your neigbor, denounce your incompetent politicians-be smart though-you might be killed too, by those cowards. In the end, you will be proud of yourself, for what you have done. God bless you all.

This is my last input on Rwanda DRC conflict, I have decided to work on: The Role of Information Technology in poor populations, a source of Information Security to Developed Economies. I believe that, selected articles about this subject would enlight Obama administration, to work towards good results and solutions to the matter! Wish me Well!!!!!!!!!

What do bloggers know about Rwanda-DRC conflict?

Nyagatare — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:19:32 EST

Rwanda: Dealing with the reality, achieving common ground, and betting on the future.

Comment to Colette Braeckman's article entitled: "DRC: The failure of the International Community as well".

On October 9th, 2008 Colette Braeckman published in the Belgian newspaper "Le Soir" and posted on her website a shocking article entitled "DRC: The failure of the international community as well". The entire article can be accessed online at the following link: “http://blogs. lesoir.be/ colette-braeckma n/2008/10/ 09/lechec- aussi-de- la-communaute- internationale/”.

In this article, Colette Braeckman raises the current civil war in the DRC in the eastern province of North Kivu and proposes the solution.
Briefly, here is how she poses the problem:

The problem:

"When the Mobutu regime, pressured by the International community, agreed to host the perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide and their fellows, the Rwandan regime felt entitled the right to invade the DRC province of Kivu so that it can chase away its strenuous opponents."

The solution:

"Hunt down the Hutu genocidaires and send them home in Rwanda or elsewhere, neutralize the Tutsi rebel Laurent Nkunda, seal off the DRC boundaries , and halt the looting of the DRC mineral resources."

In my opinion, Colette Braeckman is deadly wrong both on the root cause of the current DRC civil war and obviously on her proposed solution.

About the cause:

The presence in the DRC of what Colette Braeckman calls "Hutu genocidaires" is a direct consequence of the military coup which put the RPF on power in Rwanda.
Up to date, the RPF continues to spread lies that its decision to take power by force in Rwanda was directly linked to its willingness and determination to end the Rwandan genocide in 1994. This baseless argument does not stick at all since every Rwandan knows that the Rwandan genocide of 1994 was not the cause of the Rwandan civil war which began in 1990. Instead, the Rwandan genocide of 1994 was a direct consequence of the Rwandan civil war which spanned from 1990 to 1994.
In addition, the Rwandan genocide was triggered by the terrorist attack against the Rwandan presidential aircraft on April 6th, 1994.

Numerous reliable sources attest that this terrorist attack is the triggering event of Rwandan genocide and that it was ordered and executed by the RPF.

In 1994, the RPF was indeed in a desperate need of a strong argument so that it can resume the Rwandan civil war which had been ended by the Arusha Peace Agreement signed between the RPF and the Rwandan government on August 4th, 1993.
The RPF wanted to resume the war because the application of the Arusha Peace Agreement would have lead in just 22 months to democratic elections and the RPF was strongly convinced that there was no way it could have won these elections.
The RPF was in great fear of a strong coalition that would have emerged between MRND, MDR, and PSD political parties before and/ or after these elections.
This great fear was somehow real: in neighboring Burundi, the political party of Pierre Buyoya (UPRONA) had just lost the democratic elections.
On one hand, the RPF back-up base in Burundi, the second largest back-up base both politically and militarily, was in great danger of being wiped out. On the other hand, well-informed sources suggested that in Rwanda, MRND, MDR, and PSD political parties were gaining key allies in neighboring Burundi.
That is why the RPF decided to halt the implementation of the Arusha Peace Agreement by resuming hostilities in Rwanda.
On April 6th, 1994 the RPF fired two missiles, shot down the Falcon 50, and killed at scene two African Heads of State: the Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana and the Burundian president Cyprien Ntaryamira.
This terrorist act achieved two goals:
Firstly, by killing the Burundian President Cyprien Ntaryamira, the RPF halted, at least temporarily, the democratic process in Burundi and stabilized its back-up base in this country.
Secondly, by killing the Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana, the RPF triggered the resumption of the Rwandan civil war and at the same time halted the implementation process of the Arusha Peace Agreement.
In the aftermath of signing the Arusha Peace Agreement, the RPF deliberately resumed the recruitment of new combatants long before the April 6th 1994 terrorist act.
In strong violation of the Arusha Peace Agreement, these new RPF recruits were enlisted in the APR late in March 1994.
The consequences of this enlistment are well-known: crimes of genocide, collapse of the Rwandan government, exodus of 2.5 million Rwandans to Tanzania, then to Burundi, and finally to the DRC, which alone received more than 1.5 million Rwandan refugees in its two eastern provinces of North Kivu and South Kivu, provinces that are up to date war torn.
Moreover, from 1996 to 1997, the RPF continued to track the ex-FAR inside the DRC in order to exterminate them and install its allies in Kinshasa.
To achieve this goal, the RPF massacred at least 200,000 Rwandan refugees inside the DRC. It even tried to conceal evidence for these mass killings by burning victim corpses and scattering the ashes away in the forest and/ or in the river.
Such a sinister plan was thwarted when a revolutionary Congolese, the late Laurent-Desire Kabila, took power in the DRC and decided to restore the sovereignty of the land.
In August 1998, the RPF launched a new war aiming at not only completing the installation of its allies in Kinshasa, but also to prevent any international criminal justice inquiry into its role in the DRC, given the extent of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by its army. Some of these crimes had already been documented by an investigation team established by the UN Secretary-General.
This new proxy war in the DRC made it possible for many survivors of the Rwandan refugee massacres of 1996 and 1997 to stand up and defend themselves against this strenuous common enemy.
The birth of the FDLR is a direct consequence of the RPF sinister plan in the DRC.
That is the origin of the current proxy war in the province of North Kivu. In other words, the origin of the current DRC civil war is in Kigali not in Goma or in Kinshasa. Sooner or later this problem will be solved.
This problem is the result of the RPF refusal to face free democratic elections in Rwanda. It also is the result of the RPF inability to handle the actual state of Hutu-Tutsi problems in Rwanda.
Indeed, the RPF regime has been trying to underestimate and ignore the existence of such Hutu-Tutsi problems in Rwanda.
In Rwanda, there are nearly 85% Hutus and 14% Tutsis. Democratic elections in Rwanda would probably give back the power to a "Hutu" movement.
This analysis has always been in the RPF calculations with regard to plausible results of democratic elections in Rwanda. The RPF suggests that such results simply denote "confusion between the ethnic majority and the political majority."
Since 1993, the RPF estimates that such results would inexorably relegate it to the opposition for an indefinite period of time.
Indeed, this is the case for the UPRONA of Pierre Buyoya in neighboring Burundi since the democratic elections of June 1993 and 2005.
This also is the case in South Africa where democratic elections have thrown the National Parteit of De Klerk (now renamed the Democratic Alliance) in the opposition since 1994.
That is root cause of the current DRC crisis in the province of North Kivu.

About the proposed solution

A democratic government is urgently needed in Kigali. In my opinion, it is obvious that a democratically elected government in Kigali would not need to sponsor armed groups in the provinces of North and South Kivu.
In addition, such a democratically elected government in Kigali would refuse to offer back-up bases to any Congolese armed groups, including the one belonging to the Tutsi rebel Laurent Nkundabatware, whose rebellions would shortly die off by themselves.
Concerning the Rwandan armed groups, including the FDLR combatants, a democratically elected government in Kigali would not be afraid to directly discuss with them.
Direct talks between these combatants and the democratically elected Rwandan government would set up new relationships under which the armed struggle would be meaningless. These armed groups would not have any reason to refuse to face justice in Rwanda, should some of their combatants have to respond for their acts, just as any other Rwandan in similar situation would have to, especially the RPF members who are accused of several crimes, including crimes against humanity.
A democratically elected government in Kigali would provide impartial justice for all Rwandans without any discrimination.
Therefore, there would be no need for such a democratic government in Kigali to request that these combatants be sent "elsewhere".
Their home is in Rwanda. That is where they belong and no where else.
Most importantly, it is up to the Rwandan people to judge their fellow citizens, and not to anyone else.
With numerous uncertainties and political machinations mostly owing to regional and international geopolitics, the international community can only offset the inability of the RPF regime to create suitable conditions for a fair and impartial trial in its own courts.

A realistic approach
Anyone who is still skeptical towards such an approach should take a closer look at what the CNDD-FDD accomplished in neighboring Burundi. One should also recall that Burundi represents a good specific example because both Rwanda and Burundi share the same ethnic composition of their populations not to mention a similar dark history of sporadic ethnic cleansings.
The CNDD-FDD painfully but straight forwardly negotiated with the rebellion movement PALIPEHUTU-FNL. Interestingly, beyond all expectations, a peace deal is about to be concluded, simply because the CNDD-FDD is not longer afraid to face the PALIPEHUTU-FNL in democratic elections.
Let’s make it clear: the Hutu factor does not and will not absolutely play any role between the CNDD-FDD and Palipehutu FNL Burundian supporters. These political parties have the obligation to play modern politics.
Their respective leaders, including the FRODEBU leadership, will have to propose to the Burundian Hutu voters something smarter than the length of their noses during the upcoming electoral campaigns.
That is the right solution to their current political deadlock. Everything else is none other than a patch on a wooden leg.
The DRC crisis cannot be solved without taking into account its root causes that are in Rwanda.
Westerners should be aware of some misleading statements that usually characterize the RPF rhetoric.
Claiming to neutralize the Tutsi rebel Laurent Nkundabatware without neutralizing his sponsors, including the RPF government in Kigali, which founded this rebellion and continues up to date to provide him with both fighters and logistics, is nothing else than pulling the wool over the public opinion's eyes.
With regard to the current political deadlock in Rwanda, it is important to recall that for several centuries to come, there will be a majority Hutu and minority Tutsi as it has always been in the Rwandan history.
The RPF will not have any other voters than the Rwandan people. It is therefore, up to the RPF to change its ideology and practices, a metamorphosis that will require that the RPF become less Tutsi but more Rwandan.
That is the only way which could allow the RPF to face with confidence democratic elections that are regularly held in civilized countries.
Concerning the ethnic composition of the Rwandan population and the political mind set of the Rwandan voters, these two parameters are not prone to any change in the near future.
The Republic of Rwanda will always be inhabited by a majority Hutu and minority Tutsi.
Given such a situation, the RPF cannot indefinitely run away from the democratic elections. It must have the courage to face them right away.
Should the RPF lose these elections, it will have to learn from its mistakes. It is now time for the RPF to get ready for the upcoming defeat, rather than attempting, without any perspective of political reforms in the near future, to delay these elections.
Sooner or later democratic elections will be held in Rwanda.
That is the way the Rwandan history course has been drawn and nobody can change it.
People who are still skeptical about such a realistic approach should take a closer look at South Africa where the white racist regime has done everything it could in the past to delay democratic elections by denying the voting rights to the black people.
The white racist regime already knew that black people (the majority) would likely vote for a political movement mainly composed of black people.
Fortunately, there was not much the white racist regime could do about this ethnic composition of the South African population and this situation will undoubtedly last several centuries to come.
What would then the white racist regime have done to keep its head above water?
Continue to be stubborn by fear of losing democratic elections?
Continue to spread proxy wars in neighboring countries, under the umbrella of waging the war against the communism system, and establish a huge protective shield, spanning from Namibia to Mozambique not to mention Zimbabwe and Angola?
For how long such the white racist regime would have blocked the actual course of the South African history?
That is what Frederick De Klerk thoroughly understood and I strongly believe that this is probably why he won the Nobel Peace Prize that he shared with Nelson Mandela.
That is also why the ANC needs a comprehensive plan that would improve the quality of life for all South African black voters besides the credit it already enjoys for having successfully fought against the apartheid.
The stake could not be higher for the ANC. It must address the social concerns of all South African people, create jobs, provide lands, decent housing, affordable healthcare system and access to higher education, etc. rather than selling the color of its leaders’ skin.
Interestingly, that is exactly what Pierre Buyoya of Burundi has come to realize lately. Actually, there is no doubt that Pierre Buyoya deserves strong respect from the Burundian people, despite his many terrible mistakes of the past and strong disagreement from his own party leadership.
In Rwanda, one can still delay the opportunity to alleviate the sufferings imposed to the Rwandan people. However, one should keep in mind that such an attitude does not mean that the Rwandan history will not ultimately relegate the RPF into the opposition for an indefinite period of time.
Therefore, it is time for the RPF to hurry up by lifting its many blockades to such a great opportunity in the Rwandan history.
That is how the eastern DRC might regain its lasting stability. The time for proxy wars in DRC is over. It is time for the RPF to cope with its weaknesses and humbly accept the change the Rwandan people have been waiting for.
It is time for the Rwandan people to get together and unanimously request for a secured RPF hideout in the opposition. Unless the RPF accept to play modern politics, it will not escape from this unfortunate fate.
Keeping running away from this process by intensifying headlong rushes denotes a political anachronism of a failed regime.
Unfortunately, such an attitude inexorably prolongs the sufferings of the Rwandan people who are desperately begging for help.
Tenacious memories still rime in so many Rwandans who survived the RPF atrocities. Therefore, the more the RPF will intensify its headlong rushes, the longer will be the time it will have to spend in the opposition.
In the 2010 Rwandan presidential elections, the RPF will have one more chance to make up its mind set for the common good of the Rwandan people.

CTO or CIA for Federal Government: Obama on IT!

Nyagatare — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 01:57:51 EST

The United States CTO needs to be a CIO By CurtMonash on Fri, 11/07/2008 - 10:43am.

During the recent campaign, Barack Obama promised to name a national Chief Technical Officer. The blogosphere has now erupted in discussion as to who that should be. I, for example, recommend Charles Rossotti, a stellar entrepreneur and public servant, because of his unparalleled accomplishments in improving government IT. John Doerr, however, favors Bill Joy, a great technologist turned venture capitalist, presumably for his abilities as a technology visionary.

Clearly, Doerr and I aren't talking about the same thing. I'm recommending my best candidate for what would more properly be called a Chief INFORMATION Officer, while Doerr favors a true CTO. In this disagreement, I have a couple of heavyweights on my side, namely Vint Cerf (sort of) and, more important, Barack Obama himself. Here's Obama's official characterization of the role:

Obama will appoint the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies and services for the 21st century. The CTO will ensure the safety of our networks and will lead an interagency effort, working with chief technology and chief information officers of each of the federal agencies, to ensure that they use best-in-class technologies and share best practices.
The CTO will have a specific focus on transparency, by ensuring that each arm of the federal government makes its records open and accessible as the E-Government Act requires. The CTO will also focus on using new technologies to solicit and receive information back from citizens to improve the functioning of democratic government.
The CTO will also ensure technological interoperability of key government functions. For example, the Chief Technology Officer will oversee the development of a national, interoperable wireless network for local, state and federal first responders as the 9/11 commission recommended. This will ensure that fire officials, police officers and EMTs from different jurisdictions have the ability to communicate with each other during a crisis and we do not have a repeat of the failure to deliver critical public services that occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Sure sounds like a get-things-done CIO – i.e., a technology implementation leader -- to me!

Now, I'm all in favor of having a visionary CTO in addition to the CIO, whether reporting to the CIO or otherwise. No matter how much reform there is of government procurement processes, technology acquisition cycles will surely remain long, and that calls for considerable technology-choosing astuteness when the opportunity for decision-making does present itself. But the need for a true CIO – whether called “CIO,” “CTO,” or “Abacus Czar” -- is compelling. Besides the security, communications interoperability, and transparency initiatives outlined above, we need an experienced technology implementation leader to:

Recommend major changes in government IT contracting. Right now, information technology is bought at the wrong level of granularity, too coarse and too fine at once. Private sector CIOs make broad technology architecture decisions, then make incremental purchases as needed. Public sector IT managers, however, are generally compelled to make purchases on a “project” basis, which allows neither the sanity of broad-scale planning nor the economies and adaptability of just-in-time acquisition.
Establish best practices in a broad range of IT areas. Obama's “transparency” initiative involves pushing the state of the art in public-facing technology for search, query, and audio/video, at a minimum. Other areas of major technical challenge include internal search, knowledge management, and social networking; disaster robustness; planning in the face of political budgeting uncertainty; numbers-based management without the benefit of a profit/loss statement ... and the list could easily be twice as long.
Interact with the private sector. From electronic health records to the general supply chain, there are huge opportunities for public/private interoperability, quite apart from the obvious customer/vendor relationships the government has with the IT industry.
Improve training, recruiting, and retention. Anywhere government needs employees whose skills are also in high demand in the private sector, government pay scales cause difficulties. IT is a top area for that problem. Outstanding leadership is needed to overcome it.

Further suggestions for Obama Adminstration IT priorities are here.

Richard Koman seems to have views similar to mine. As he puts it:

The CTO job is a political job, a bureaucratic job. The person who succeeds in that job will be someone who can bring an entrepreneurial spirit into a government setting. They will have to familiar with the CTO positions at the whole range of federal agencies; they will have to know their way around Washington to some extent; they will know how to work with large, combative constituencies; and they will expect to be held accountable.

Koman suggests a state CTO for the job; I suggest Rossotti. Either way, what's most needed is somebody with the proven ability to get IT work done in government.

Rwanda and DRC could easily end this Tragedy!

Nyagatare — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:07:03 EST

Cyprian Musoke
Kampala

Rwanda should stop supporting renegade general Laurent Nkunda under false pretext, Democratic Republic of Congo's Minister of Planning, Olivier Kamitatu, told Sunday Vision. In an exclusive interview conducted by Cyprian Musoke

Do you think the tripartite summit was a success?

We really wonder if regional integration is possible without security and peace. It is a great paradox. We have many problems in eastern Congo, especially with Rwanda, which continues to support Congolese rebels like Nkunda under false pretext. They claim it is about the protection of Tutsis. But not a single Tutsi has been killed in Congo. And Tutsis occupy high positions in the army, the parliament, the senate and the administration of public enterprises. It was agreed that all forces would be integrated into the national Congolese army, but Nkunda has refused to integrate his troops.

Rwanda claims that your government is supporting Hutu extremists who were responsible for the 1994 genocide.

We have no reason to co-operate with extremist Hutus. Who is an extremist Hutu anyway? Over 70% of the FDLR are below the age of 24. They were 10 when the genocide took place. When Rwanda declares that there are 7,000 Hutus in eastern Congo and that 6,900 are genocidaires, it is a joke. But apart from that, we don't want those people in Congo. In the past five years, they have not killed anybody in Rwanda. Instead, it is the Congolese people suffering. They have been killing and raping Congolese civilians. We want them to go back to their country. We are even ready to discuss how they could be relocated to other parts of Congo. We are open to any suggestions. We want to find lasting solutions. But they need to be realistic. Uganda and Rwanda were not able to neutralise the Interahamwe during the five years they occupied the Congo. How do they expect us to do it alone? We want Rwanda to say frankly what their concerns are. Is it about protection of the Tutsi minority? Is it about Hutu extremists? Or is it about business, about coltan, gold and other minerals?

Is a free trade zone not the ultimate objective of the regional integration discussed at the tripartite summit?

We can trade with Rwanda provided they are willing to respect Congolese laws and trade is carried out transparently and for the benefit of the entire population. We cannot accept Congolese minerals being exported to Rwanda in an uncontrolled way.

The Congolese army itself is accused of grave human rights abuses, including rape, looting and killing of civilians.

Joseph Kabila inherited a totally devastated country. We have to reconstruct everything. That takes time and money. The will is there to build an army which is well equipped and disciplined, but the resources needed are enormous. The integration of so many rebel forces into the national army is another challenge. But that is the price we have to pay for peace in Congo.

Is MONUC (the UN peacekeeping force in Congo) assisting your government to rebuild the army?

Not really. We are getting support from Angola, South Africa, Belgium, the European Union and France.

How would you describe your current relationship with Uganda?

Our relations have improved. We have re-opened embassies in our respective countries and will soon exchange ambassadors. Uganda is in a position to help DRC, Rwanda and Burundi improve their relations. President Yoweri Museveni has a big role to play, as an elder with great experience. The disintegration of Congo, a country with a 10,000 km border line and 65 million people, would be a great disaster for the whole region.

Uganda was instructed by the International Court of Justice to pay reparation for its involvement in the DRC in the late 90s. Is the issue still on Kinshasa's agenda?

The National Assembly wants the government to accelerate the matter. But we prefer to talk about normalisation of relations and how we can reconstruct Kisangani through investments. We don't want to just forget about the matter. It should be a lesson for history. We don't want this kind of problem ever again.

The International Criminal Court recently demanded to know what Kinshasa was doing to execute the warrants of arrest against LRA leader Joseph Kony and his commanders. What steps has your government taken against the LRA?

Congo has no interest in having its territory being used as a sanctuary for Ugandan rebels, particularly at a time when we are discussing cross-border trade, investments and shared infrastructure. We have mobilised all efforts to arrest Kony and are already carrying out military operations in the area. We are co-operating with the UPDF because they have experience. At the moment our co-operation is at the level of intelligence sharing, but I cannot go into details.

Are you getting support from MONUC for this operation?

MONUC is in the region, but we are carrying out this operation in our own capacity. Kony is a big concern to us. Dozens of Congolese children have been abducted and thousands of civilians are fleeing. Villagers have now organised themselves to fight Kony. Garamba National Park is a difficult area to control. And as you know, the rebels' tactic is to attack and retreat. The army has sent reinforcement to the area. We plan to deploy more and more troops in the next few weeks.

What time frame are you looking at to arrest Kony?

It is difficult to say, but I would say it is a matter of weeks. The two heads of state are discussing the issue, which shows that it is a priority to both leaders.

Uganda is in advanced stages of exploring oil on Lake Albert. Why did Congo decide to use a different company from the one Uganda is using?

The contract has not yet been awarded. The final person to give authorisation is President Joseph Kabila. At ministerial level, an operator has been suggested, but it must be sanctioned by President Kabila.

An oil worker was killed by Congolese soldiers near the disputed Rukwanzi Island last year. What happened to the border demarcation project?

A commission was put in place to demarcate the border, not only with Uganda, but also Angola. It has not finished its work yet. We want normalisation and development along the border, not tension. We want to have a common zone of prosperity. When Congo becomes secure and registers economic growth, Uganda and Rwanda will also be more secure.

What is your economic programme to reconstruct the country?

We are following the Ugandan example of private and government partnerships. We now have 62 of such partnership agreements. We want to produce 400,000 tonnes of copper in the next three years, to get back to the capacity of 1989. We are co-operating with the Chinese on how to explore our minerals. We are also negotiating with the donors to have our external debt, amounting to $10b, cancelled so that we use the money for infrastructure development. We need $14b in the next five years to reconstruct the country. The donor consultative group pledged $4b. The rest we have to mobilise internally.

What are your priorities?

We want to refurbish the two Inga dams, which have a capacity of 1,700 megawatts. We are also finishing the feasibility study for Inga 3, which will have a capacity of another 4,500 megawatts. Our second priority is to explore oil in the western part of the country, near the border with Angola, which has a potential of 1million barrels per day.

In terms of transport infrastructure, we want to construct a railway from the deep sea port in Mbanana to Kinshasa, as well as refurbish the one from Kindu to Lubumbashi. We also want to connect Kasese and Lubumbashi to Kisangani by road. We want to link every part of Congo to the outside world

Finally, Spanish and French judges understood by EU countries!

Nyagatare — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:51:14 EST

AFP/File – Rwanda's former Hutu president Juvenal Habyarimana, seen here in 1982, was killed in 1994 when his …

KIGALI (AFP) – Rwanda has summoned Germany's ambassador to Kigali to protest against the arrest of a top aide to President Paul Kagame on suspicion of participating in an assassination that sparked the 1994 genocide, an official said on Monday.

Kagame's chief of protocol Rose Kabuye was arrested on Sunday at Frankfurt airport on an international warrant issued in 2006 by French anti-terrorism judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere.

"Our foreign affairs minister yesterday summoned the German ambassador to protest. Kabuye was on an official mission and enjoys diplomatic immunity," Information Minister Louise Mushikiwabo said.

"She is an innocent woman who was arrested on a politically motivated warrant, a warrant issued on the basis of manipulated investigations," Mushikiwabo told AFP. "This blackmail cannot continue anymore."

Kabuye is the first Rwandan to be arrested out of nine warrants issued by Bruguiere against close Kagame aides whom the judge suspects of being behind the death of former Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana.

Habyarimana was killed when his plane was shot down in April 1994 in an assassination which triggered ethnic tensions between Hutus and Tutsis and which led to the genocide.

The arrest warrants sparked a bilateral diplomatic row resulting in Rwanda suspending ties with France.

Kabuye's lawyer said she was willing to be transferred to France "as quickly as possible" to speak to French judges.

But Mushikiwabo told AFP: "We hope that with this arrest, the whole world will finally know that these arrest warrants have no legal basis. We want the warrants made public. It is time to tell the truth."

Kabuye had already visited Germany in April as part of an official delegation headed by Kagame.

At the time, Berlin acknowledged the government was aware of the French warrant, but said German law prevented it from taking action against representatives of foreign states or delegations it had invited.

This time, Kabuye -- a former lawmaker and mayor of Kigali -- "was at the Frankfurt airport on a private basis," a diplomat told AFP on Sunday.

Mushikiwabo also criticised last week's legal suit by 10 senior French military officers against Rwanda, which accuses them of involvement in the genocide.

The five generals and five colonels served in Operation Turquoise, a French military mission to Rwanda in 1994 which Kigali said assisted Hutu genocide perpetrators.

"For us, this also one of the acts of intimidation. The involvement of France (in the genocide) is a truth. France politically and militarily helped a government that committed genocide," Mushikiwabo said.

"This suit does not worry us. Truth speaks for itself. Their actions are widely documented by third parties, by non-Rwandans. Their (acts) are in several reports."

In August, the Rwandan government issued a 500-page report naming 13 French politicians and 20 military officials for their a role in the massacres, including then-president FranÃ§ois Mitterrand who died in January 1996.

The report alleged France was aware of preparations for the genocide, contributed to planning the massacres and actively took part in the killings.

It also named 20 military officials as being responsible for the killings and raised the possibility of Rwandan legal action against them.

Still digesting the victory

Nyagatare — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 18:42:24 EST

By TERENCE HUNT, Associated Press Writer Terence Hunt, Associated Press Writer – Wed Nov 5, 1:37 pm ET

WASHINGTON – His storied election behind him and weighty problems in his face, Barack Obama turned Wednesday to the task of building an administration in times of crisis as Americans and the world absorbed his history-shattering achievement as the first black leader ascending to the presidency.

Obama enjoyed an everyman day-after in his hometown of Chicago on Wednesday after an electric night of celebration, anchored by his victory rally of 125,000 in Chicago and joyful outpourings of his supporters across the country. The president-elect saw his two young daughters off to school, a simple pleasure he's missed during nearly two years of virtually nonstop travel, then had a gym workout.

Pressing business came at him fast, with just 76 days until his inauguration as the 44th president.

The nation's top intelligence officials planned to give him top-secret daily briefings starting Thursday, sharing with him the most critical overnight intelligence as well as other information he has not been allowed to see as a senator or candidate. And Obama planned to give the first of his daily briefings to the media on Thursday as he moves quickly to begin assembling a White House staff and selecting Cabinet nominees.

Obama was asking Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, former political and policy adviser to President Clinton, to be his White House chief of staff, Democratic officials said. John Podesta, who served as Clinton's chief of staff, was expected to join Obama Senate aide Pete Rouse and campaign adviser Valerie Jarrett in leading the transition team.

President Bush pledged "complete cooperation" in the transition and called Obama's victory a "triumph of the American story."

Naming the staggering list of problems he inherits in his decisive defeat of Republican John McCain — two wars and "the worst financial crisis in a century," among them — Obama sought to restrain the soaring expectations of his supporters late Tuesday night even as he stoked them with impassioned calls for national unity and partisan healing.

"We may not get there in one year or even in one term," he said. "But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you, we as a people will get there."

Helping him to get there will be a strengthened Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. When Obama becomes the president on Jan. 20, with Delaware Sen. Joe Biden as his vice president, Democrats will control both the White House and Congress for the first time since 1994.

A tide of international goodwill came Obama's way on Wednesday morning, even as developments made clear how heavy a weight will soon be on his shoulders.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev issued a congratulatory telegram saying there is "solid positive potential" for the election to improve strained relations between Washington and Moscow, if Obama engages in constructive dialogue.

Yet he appeared to be deliberately provocative hours after the election with sharp criticism of the U.S. and his announcement that Russia will deploy missiles near NATO member Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans.

In Afghanistan, where villagers said the U.S. bombed a wedding party and killed 37 people, President Hamid Karzai said: "This is my first demand of the new president of the United States — to put an end to civilian casualties."

Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level or as an executive, Obama easily defeated McCain, smashing records and remaking history along the way.

Ending an improbable journey that started for Obama a long 21 months ago, he drew a record-breaking $700 million to his campaign account alone. The first African-American destined to sit in the Oval Office, he also was the first Democrat to receive more than 50 percent of the popular vote since Jimmy Carter in 1976. He is the first senator elected to the White House since John F. Kennedy in 1960.

And Obama scored an Electoral College landslide that redrew America's political dynamics. He won states that reliably voted Republican in presidential elections, such as Indiana and Virginia, which hadn't supported a Democratic candidate in 44 years. Ohio and Florida, key to President Bush's twin victories, also went for Obama, as did Pennsylvania, which McCain had deemed crucial for his election hopes.

With most U.S. precincts tallied, the popular vote was 52.3 percent for Obama and 46.4 percent for McCain. But the count in the Electoral College was much more lopsided — 349 to 147 in Obama's favor as of early Wednesday, with three states still to be decided. Those were North Carolina, Georgia and Missouri.

The nation awakened to the new reality at daybreak, a short night after millions witnessed Obama's election — an event so rare it could not be called a once-in-a-century happening. Prominent black leaders wept unabashedly in public, rejoicing in the elevation of one of their own, at long last.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, who had made two White House bids himself, said on ABC's "Good Morning America" that the tears streaming down his face upon Obama's victory were about his father and grandmother and "those who paved the fights. And then that Barack's so majestic."

Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and leading player in the civil rights movement with Jackson, said on NBC's "Today" show: "He's going to call on us, I believe, to sacrifice. We all must give up something."

Speaking from Hong Kong, retired Gen. Colin Powell, the black Republican whose endorsement of Obama symbolized the candidate's bipartisan reach and bolstered him against charges of inexperience, called the senator's victory "a very very historic occasion." But he also predicted that Obama would be "a president for all America."

On Capitol Hill, Democrats ousted incumbent GOP Sens. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and John Sununu of New Hampshire and captured seats held by retiring Republican senators in Virginia, New Mexico and Colorado. Still, the GOP blocked a complete rout, holding the Kentucky seat of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and a Mississippi seat once held by Trent Lott.

The Associated Press prematurely declared incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman the winner in a race against Democratic former comedian Al Franken that by state law is subject to a recount based on the 571-vote margin. The party also held onto a Mississippi seat once held by Trent Lott.

In the House, with fewer than a dozen races still undecided, Democrats captured Republican-held seats in the Northeast, South and West and were on a path to pick up as many as 20 seats.

"It is not a mandate for a party or ideology but a mandate for change," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

After the longest and costliest campaign in U.S. history, Obama was propelled to victory by voters dismayed by eight years of Bush's presidency and deeply anxious about rising unemployment and home foreclosures and a battered stock market that has erased trillions of dollars of savings for Americans.

Six in 10 voters picked the economy as the most important issue facing the nation in an Associated Press exit poll. None of the other top issues — energy, Iraq, terrorism and health care — was selected by more than one in 10. Obama has promised to cut taxes for most Americans, get the United States out of Iraq and expand health care, including mandatory coverage for children.

McCain conceded defeat shortly after 11 p.m. EST, telling supporters outside the Arizona Biltmore Hotel, "The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly."

"This is an historic election, and I recognize the special significance it has for African-Americans and the special pride that must be theirs tonight," McCain said. "These are difficult times for our country. And I pledge to him tonight to do all in my power to help him lead us through the many challenges we face."

The son of a Kenyan father and a white mother from Kansas, the 47-year-old Obama has had a startlingly rapid rise, from lawyer and community organizer to state legislator and U.S. senator, now not even four years into his first term.

Almost six in 10 women supported Obama nationwide, while men leaned his way by a narrow margin, according to interviews with voters. Just over half of whites supported McCain, giving him a slim advantage in a group that Bush carried overwhelmingly in 2004.

The results of the AP survey were based on a preliminary partial sample of nearly 10,000 voters in Election Day polls and in telephone interviews over the past week for early voters.

In terms of turnout, America voted in record numbers. It looks like 136.6 million Americans will have voted for president this election, based on 88 percent of the country's precincts tallied and projections for absentee ballots, said Michael McDonald of George Mason University. Using his methods, that would give 2008 a 64.1 percent turnout rate, the highest since 65.7 percent in 1908, he said.

Netherland to Rwanda on its DRC involvement

Nyagatare — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 15:00:03 EST

Does Rwanda deserve development assistance?

By Pieternel Gruppen*

08-11-2008

The violence in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has led to renewed debate about the wisdom of providing Rwanda with developmental assistance. Although Rwanda is involved in the violence, the central African country can still count on around 230 million euros in foreign aid a year.

Rwandan President Paul Kagame
visiting Washington D.C. in late 2005
(Photo: Nando Quintana at Flickr.com)

Rwandan President Paul Kagame was one of the participants in Friday's summit on the crisis in the DRC. Proponents of continued aid to Rwanda believe that he took part in the talks because the aid is an inducement to taking a more conciliatory role.

Opponents, on the other hand, say that since Rwanda is part of the problem in the DRC, aid should be suspended.

Scoundrel
The Netherlands is one of the donor countries. Arend Jan Boekestijn, MP for the conservative opposition VVD party in the Dutch parliament, gets angry when speaking about the fact that the Netherlands gives more than 17 million euros in aid to Rwanda every year.

He says the Rwandan president is a "scoundrel" and it is quite clear that Rwanda is directly involved in the renewed violence in the eastern DRC. "Mr Kagame supports rebel leader General Nkunda, who is responsible for an enormous amount of misery."

Extremist Hutus
Paul Hoebink, who teaches developmental studies at the Radboud University in Nijmegen, says the extent of Kagame's involvement is difficult to prove. However, even supporters of continued aid admit that Rwanda is involved in the violence in DRC. Rwanda has invaded the DRC twice.

Rwanda says it did so in order to defend itself from extremist Hutus responsible for the 1994 genocide who fled to neighbouring DRC. It says the government of DRC has failed to keep its promise to disarm them. Some critics say Rwanda is just looking for an excuse to illegally exploit its neighbour's mineral resources. Various statistics show that Rwanda exports raw materials that it does not even possess.

Cut off funds
Dutch Labour MEP Thijs Berman admits that Kagame is a leader who has made many mistakes. However, he still does not think that aid to Rwanda should be cut off. He says that because of the large amount of aid Rwanda has received over the past 15 years it has made an enormous amount of progress. "The progress made in this country deserves considerable respect."

Paul Hoebink also agrees that aid to Rwanda should continue. "How is a land which has had 800,000 of its people massacred to recover otherwise?" Hoebink says that local organisations also give him the impression that the human rights situation has improved.

"Things are moving slowly but they are going in the right direction. Who knows, maybe Rwanda might be looting even more of the DRC's resources if it wasn't getting developmental assistance?"
Good governance
Proponents of aid say that by giving money donors can pressure the regime. For instance, they can demand that President Kagame take part in the summit over the Congo crisis. The Dutch ministry of development cooperation prefers to call it "a critical dialogue". The Dutch funds are used mainly towards promoting peace and security in the region and good governance. VVD MP Boekestijn says this is nonsense. "We are not capable of exporting good governance. We are helping a horrid regime stay in power."

*RNW translation (fs)

Please Join this group!

Nyagatare — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 14:52:17 EST

http://groups.google.com/group/rwandan-americans-for-obama

What is next? An example of what we could do!

Nyagatare — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 13:28:08 EST

Happy Friday, everyone!

We're starting to hear whispers that the Mybarackoboma site might be retired at some point in the near future, which would mean we will lose the BuffalObama listserv as a means for us to all stay connected.
The Obama team already has a new site up and running: " www.change.gov".
No surprise, they aren't letting any grass grow under their feet.

Let's hope that they eventually incorporate some of the same networking tools into their new site. But as there are no guarantees that will happen, it will be very important that we prepare for the possibility that it might not, and we will want to stay connected.

And...as there are plans in the works for a big victory party as well as the beginnings of organizing groups to travel down to DC for the inauguration, we for sure want to stay connected, should MyBO come down.

So....for now, we will continue to use our MyBO BuffalObama listserv to stay connected, but...in case it goes away, we have created a new Google Group that all of us can join and continue to stay connected.
The link for the group is: http://groups.google.com/group/buffalobama
Once you go to this page, click on Join this Group on the right side of the screen.? If you do not already have a Google Account, you will need to create one in order to join the group.

If you are not able to follow the links to join, please email me and I can add your email address directly to the group...or walk you through what you need to do to get setup.

We thought this might be a better route to use, rather than just having a huge manual spreadsheet of email addresses that someone has to maintain.? Using the Google Groups functionality will enable all of us to stay in communication with everyone else, without just one person needing to maintain lists.

Email me if you have any questions or problems. As I said...,let's hope this won't ultimately be necessary and the networking tools will be incorporated into the new site....but let's be prepared just in case they're not. We can't afford to lose track of everyone....we've MUCH work to do!