Water Conflicts Move Up on U.S. Security Agenda - IPS ipsnews.net

By Carey L. Biron

The assessment predicts that water in shared basins will increasingly be used as political leverage.  Credit:UN Photo/Ky Chung

WASHINGTON, May 9, 2012 (IPS) - On Wednesday, the United States intelligence community unveiled a first-ever assessment of global water-security issues.

A declassified version of the document, which looks forward through 2040, suggests that "during the next 10 years, water problems will contribute to instability in states important to U.S. national security interests."

According to one of the assessment's lead authors, Major General Richard Engel, water-stressed countries, being forced to focus on pressing internal issues, are increasingly unable to support U.S. policies and strategic interests.

While the assessment does not foresee water being a main instigator of state-to-state violence or state failure in the next decade, beyond that "water in shared basins will increasingly be used as leverage." In addition, "water shortages and pollution probably will harm the economic performance of important (U.S.) trading partners."

The Global Water Security assessment is the result of a request made by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2011. Clinton has previously stated that water and sanitation constitute the two most basic of development priorities.

The end result of the intelligence community's research is not a comprehensive global look at the issue. Rather, it focuses on seven river basins between the Nile and the Mekong for which there is a "clear intersection of risks of availability and U.S. strategic interests", according to Casimir Yost, the director of the Strategic Futures Group at the National Intelligence Council, which authored the report.

At the public launch of the assessment, Engel admitted, "The intelligence community went into this project reluctantly. When we looked into it, however, we realised that this was a top-level national security issue."

For the United States, he suggested, one of the opportunities in the coming decades will be to make available to the rest of the world the country's expertise in water management.

Indeed, doing so has increasingly become a U.S. priority. The assessment comes on the heels of the creation, in March, of the U.S. Water Partnership, a public-private body likewise devoted to mobilising U.S. water-related knowledge.

There is general agreement that the U.S. does have a role to play in, for instance, providing and fostering scientific understanding on global water-related issues, particularly as water-related issues could become increasingly politicised in the future, leaving the data open to manipulation.

Still, there is disagreement about how exactly the United States should engage beyond this role.

Some suggest that the United States needs to get its own house in order before feeling confident in offering too much advice to the rest of the world.

"In the U.S., we have very serious concerns about how we have managed out own river systems," says Alexandra Cousteau, a filmmaker and advocate associated with National Geographic.

"The U.S. has indeed made significant contributions in these issues in the past," says Ellen Laipson, president of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a think tank here in Washington.

"But now we have to think global: we have to remember that we're here to solve the problem, not to accrue influence. We have to make sure that these discussions are not limited to Washington."

Laipson notes that the U.S. government has long had a tendency to be overly reliant on a world vision that focuses on national governments.

"It's tricky to write this (assessment) within the U.S. government," she says, "because officials tend to overlook local-level administration as well as supranational bodies."

According to both Laipson and Cousteau, supranational bodies – such as those made up of governments and stakeholders from throughout a river basin – have proven to be particularly adept at making decisions that balance national security interests with those of local livelihoods and rights.

Cousteau focuses particular emphasis on lower-level bodies.

"Oftentimes, we don't give enough credit or support to local communities who are coming up with solutions to water-related problems," she says. "Collectively, these groups are having an impact on water-security issues in their countries – and they can have an even larger impact if they are empowered."

She also warns that the new intelligence community assessment puts too little concern on the degradation of rivers as systems, including the ecologies and human communities that depend on the health of the system overall.

"It's these systems, these wetlands, that act as buffers for many of the larger security issues that we're discussing," she says. "These river systems mean prosperity for many people."

Interestingly, history bears out such a view. Despite the omnipresent importance of freshwater systems through the centuries, the historical record suggests that water issues – including water scarcity – have more often than not been grounds for cooperation rather than conflict, including in the modern age.

In a seminal 1998 paper, researcher Aaron T. Wolf wrote that during the 20th century "only seven minor skirmishes" took place, and "no war has ever been fought over water. In contrast, 145 water-related treaties were signed in the same period."

"These patterns suggest that the more valuable lesson of international water is as a resources whose characteristics tend to induce cooperation, and incite violence only in the exception."

(END) 

Ethiopian journalist faces death penalty | Media | guardian.co.uk

Ethiopian journalist Eskinder Nega could be sentenced to death tomorrow (11 May). He is one of several people accused of inciting terrorism.

He was arrested in September last year after writing an article that questioned the arrests of journalists and the actor Debebe Eshetu under the country's sweeping anti-terror legislation.

It criminalises any reporting deemed to "encourage" or "provide moral support" to groups and causes which the government considers to be "terrorist".

Nega is accused of affiliation with the banned political party Ginbot 7 and of allegedly receiving weapons and explosives from Eritrea.

Nega and his wife, Serkalim Fasil, also a journalist, were jailed together in 2005 for treason because of their coverage of a disputed parliamentary election. Their son, now seven, was born in jail.

Nega has been imprisoned at least six times under prime minister Meles Zenawi. His defence of human rights in Ethiopia has earned him a press freedom award from the PEN American Center.

Sources: IFEX/PEN

An alternative approach for African media|Comment|chinadaily.com.cn

I recently read a New York Times opinion piece entitled "Africa's Free Press Problem" byMohammed Keita and wondered which Africa he was writing about. Keita makes sweepingstatements about the state of press freedom in Africa but ends up only citing the cases ofRwanda and Ethiopia.

The New York Times jumps to the simplistic conclusions about Africa that are typical of Westernmedia reports, conveniently generalizing situations in one or two countries to frame a diverse, 54-nation continent with all manner of stereotypes. It is quite clear that emphasizing neo-liberaldemocratic ideals without considering the interests of African communities is one of the factorsthat fuels conflicts on the African continent. It is quite justifiable for the leaderships in countriessuch as Rwanda and Ethiopia to elevate unity and stability over the freedom of the oftentimesirresponsible, sensational and inflammatory press. The fact is the media could fuel a new roundof warmongering leading to the kind of horrors witnessed in the 1994 Rwanda genocide. Thepossibility of a renewed Hutu-Tutsi war is never too far from the surface. It must beremembered that the media was used in the Rwanda to whip up deep-seated ethnic hatred,and this ethnic hatred was first planted through the divide and rule policies of Rwanda'scolonizers.

When countries are faced with challenges to their very survival, a more nuanced balancebetween press freedom and the needs of development is necessary.

The New York Times writer shows his true colors by demonizing China's rising media presencein Africa. He ignores the fact that the Western media is a more entrenched and destabilizingpresence on the continent than the Chinese media. In Kenya for instance, it is a well-known factthat pandering to narrow political interests in the aftermath of the 2007 general election bysome media outlets nearly burst the seams of an otherwise tranquil nation. But moresignificantly, most Africans are tired of the Western media's instance on portraying Africa as acontinent of disease, war and poverty and nothing else.

If indeed unfettered press freedom is the one and only ingredient for development, why thenhave most African countries not achieved economic prosperity over the last five decades ofindependence?

Keita wonders why China is being embraced on the continent. There are many reasons.Perhaps the outstanding one is the fact that China is providing a different perspective toAfrican media and society: a new approach where governments, the media and the peopleconsider each other partners in development. Development, after all, is an imperative thatAfrica sorely needs if it is finally to put an end to poverty.

The New York Times article suggests that one of the roles of the media in Africa is to mobilizefunds for emergencies such as famines, and that "with civil society, the political opposition andthe press severely restricted, there is hardly any domestic scrutiny over how the governmentuses billions of dollars of international assistance from Western governments". But one onlyneeds to read economist and former World Bank consultant Dambisa Moyo's book, Dead Aid:Why Aid Is Not Working and How There is Another Way for Africa, to appreciate why and howWestern aid has failed the continent and needs to be rethought. She argues that foreign aid isa cause of Africa's persistent poverty and fosters dependency and corruption, hinderingeconomic growth in Africa.

China already offers a different approach to aid through investment in infrastructure and thereal economy that aids development and raises people's standard of living.

In his conclusion, Keita, in a subtle way, seeks financial support for Africa's commercial mediaas well as press freedom organizations from the West to counter China's influence in Africa.This is the main thrust of his article. Well, both China and the West are engaging Africa withdifferent models and the media sector is no exception. The Western approach to mediaassistance is informed by ideology. Its support is intent on changing entire social systems to fitinto their Western-centric worldview. The Chinese approach is based on broader Sino-Africarelations that eschew preaching or exporting ideology to Africa, settling instead for pragmaticareas of collaboration. Africans should be allowed to choose between these two modelsthemselves.

The writer is a Kenyan communications researcher based at the Communication University ofChina.

PEN honors jailed Ethiopian journalist

PEN honors jailed Ethiopian journalist:

'via Blog this'Associated Press | Posted: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 1:09 am | (0) comments.

Font Size:

Default font size

Larger font size

Serkalem Fasil accepts the 2012 PEN American's "Freedom to Write Award" for her husband Eskinder Nega, imprisoned Ethiopian writer, in New York, NY Tuesday May 1, 2012. The imprisoned Ethiopian journalist and blogger who could face the death penalty for advocating peaceful protests in his Horn of Africa homeland was honored Tuesday with PEN America's "Freedom to Write" award. (AP Photo/Beowulf Sheehan, PEN American Center)

An imprisoned Ethiopian journalist and blogger who could face the death penalty for advocating peaceful protests in his Horn of Africa homeland was honored Tuesday with PEN America's "Freedom to Write" award.

Eskinder Nega was arrested in 2011 under Ethiopia's sweeping anti-terrorism laws, which PEN says criminalize any reporting deemed to "encourage" or "provide moral support" to groups and causes the government deems "terrorists."

Nega is still in jail after a judge in Addis Ababa found him guilty Jan. 23 on terror charges. He could face the death penalty at sentencing.

Ethiopia has arrested close to 200 people, among them journalists and opposition politicians and members, under last year's anti-terrorism proclamation.

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, more journalists have fled Ethiopia than any other country in the world over the past decade.

Nega was honored at PEN/America's annual gala dinner Tuesday at the American Museum of Natural History, with some 500 PEN members and supporters in attendance.

PEN/America granted him the year's PEN/Barbara Goldsmith Freedom to Write Award.

Forty-six women and men have received the award since 1987; 33 of the 37 honorees who were in prison at the time they were honored were subsequently released.

Accepting the award was his wife, Serkalem Fasil, a free expression advocate in her own right, who served 17 months in prison for treason starting in 2005 and gave birth to their child behind bars. She won the International Women's Media Foundation Courage in Journalism Award in 2007.

"The Ethiopian writer Eskinder Nega is that bravest and most admirable of writers, one who picked up his pen to write things that he knew would surely put him at grave risk," said Peter Godwin, president of PEN American Center. "Yet he did so nonetheless. And indeed he fell victim to exactly the measures he was highlighting, Ethiopia's draconian `anti terrorism' laws that criminalize critical commentary."

Nega has been publishing articles critical of the government since 1993, when he opened his first newspaper, Ethiopis, which was soon shut down by authorities.

He was the general manager of Serkalem Publishing House, which published the newspapers Asqual, Satenaw, and Menelik, all of which are now banned in Ethiopia.

Nega has also been a columnist for the monthly magazine Change and the U.S.-based news forum EthioMedia, which are also banned in Ethiopia.

He has been detained at least seven times under Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, including in 2005, when he and his wife Serkalem were imprisoned for 17 months on treason charges for their critical reporting on the government's violent crackdown of protests following disputed elections, and briefly in February 2011 for "attempts to incite Egyptian and Tunisian-like protests in Ethiopia" after he published articles on the Arab uprisings.

Nega has been denied a license to practice journalism since 2005, yet he has continued to publish columns critical of the government's human rights record and calling for an end to political repression and corruption.

Nega was again arrested Sept. 14, 2011, after he published a column questioning the government's claim that a number of journalists it had detained were suspected terrorists, and for criticizing the arrest of well-known Ethiopian actor and government critic Debebe Eshetu on terror charges earlier that week.

Shortly after his arrest, Nega was charged with affiliation with the banned political party Ginbot 7, which the Ethiopian government considers a terrorist organization. On Nov. 10, Nega was charged and further accused of plotting with and receiving weapons and explosives from neighboring Eritrea to carry out terrorist attacks in Ethiopia. State television portrayed Nega and other political prisoners as "spies for foreign forces."

He is being held in Maekelawi Prison in Addis Ababa, where detainees are reportedly often tortured.

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/pen-honors-jailed-ethiopian-journalist/article_75f23f08-0659-5dcf-8544-b318af2546b7.html#ixzz1tmmCTaiO

Committee to Protect Journalists: In most censored countries, Internet is hamstrung or withheld

By Danny O'Brien/CPJ Internet Advocacy Coordinator

One big reason for the Internet's success is its role as a universal standard, interoperable across the world. The data packets that leave your computer in Botswana are the same as those which arrive in Barbados. The same is increasingly true of modern mobile networks. Standards are converging: You can use your phone, access an app, or send a text, wherever you are.

But in CPJ's new report, The 10 Most Censored Nations, communications networks are constructed not to live up to that ideal, but to fit the limitations of press freedom in each country. The Internet and mobile phones may be transforming how the news is covered, but CPJ's list shows the extent to which controls on news-gatherers distort and hamper the growth of the Internet and cellphone use.

The pattern is different in each country, reflecting local priorities in silencing the independent press. In Belarus and Syria, the Net is home to unlawful but state-sanctioned hacking andsurveillance. In Saudi Arabia, Internet users are subject to the same harsh controls that are applied to traditional news media. In Uzbekistan, Internet access is growing, but censorship is still draconian. In Equatorial Guinea, Internet and mobile censorship is minimal, but so is the infrastructure.

In fact, the simplest solution many of these countries have found -- including North Korea, Burma, Cuba, and Eritrea -- is to simply deny their people access to any modern communications infrastructure at all. The Internet in these nations is nonexistent, or profoundly limited: in some cases because of these countries' struggle with poverty, but also because these governments are suspicious of the dangers of a free and open Net.

What Internet infrastructure does exist often mirrors political realities on the ground. In Burma, the countries' Internet is effectively divided into three, self-contained systems: one for the people, one for the government, and one for the military. North Korea's citizens (unlike the ruling elite) have as much access to the World Wide Web as they have to any independent media -- which is to say none. And while Cuba has seen some improvement in availability and affordability of mobile telephones, the country is still struggling to catch up after a history of banning private cellphone and computer ownership.

Eritrea stands as a stark example of how a government's uncompromising approach to media has obstructed the spread of modern communications. In a continent where mobile telephony has transformed local reporting and economies, the regime has been slow to allow mobile phones -- (permission was granted only in 2004). The Internet was made available in Eritrea in 2000; the Net on mobiles is still largely unavailable. All mobile communications pass through EriTel, the state provider, and the government requires all ISPs to use the government-controlled Internet gateway.

When a country with advanced systems clamps down on press freedom, that too affects the state of its communication networks. In the six years since CPJ last published a list of most censored countries, Iran's media, and foreign correspondents based there, have suffered increasing setbacks as hardliners tried to choke off local reporting. At the same time, Iran has been investing in technology and personnel with the explicit intent of restricting Internet access. Officials have repeatedly discussed plans to create a national, or "pure," Iranian Internet, and Iranians face frequent slowdowns in Internet access. A member of the Iranian parliament's Net filtering committee described the Internet as "an uninvited guest" in the country, saying that "because of its numerous problems, severe supervision is required."

The working Internet is alike, the world over. Every censored, silenced, and filtered national network is broken in its own way. Each country on our list has found a unique way to hamper the spread of journalism online: the end result has been to punish its own citizens with online isolation and silence.

San Francisco-based CPJ Internet Advocacy Coordinator Danny O'Brien has worked globally as a journalist and activist covering technology and digital rights.

Follow CPJ on Twitter: @pressfreedom

Follow CPJ on Facebook: @committeetoprotectjournalists

Are We Getting China-Africa Media wrong when China's provided a $1.5 billion loan to the autocratic Ethiopia

Iginio Gagliardone

Research Fellow, University of Oxford

Among the increasing number of countries filtering the Internet, China has stood out in its efforts to articulate a doctrine to validate this practice. In aWhite Paper released in June 2010, for example, Chinese authorities indicated "state security and social harmony" among the pillars of Internet development, and while recognizing the significance of freedom of expression, the paper stressed that when "exercising such freedom and rights, citizens are not allowed to infringe upon state, social and collective interests." The claim that "the Internet of various countries belongs to different sovereignties" stands in sharp contrast with the U.S.'s pledge "for a single Internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas," expressed only a few months earlier by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

While it is evident how China has been developing a distinctive domestic approach to the Internet and the role of media in society more generally, whether and how the ideas informing this approach are spreading is far less clear. The few analyses provided to date have been affected by the presumption that as Western powers have been actively trying to export uses of the media supporting democratization processes in Africa, China should similarly be trying to export its version of authoritarianism abroad. But there is little empirical evidence showing this to be the case.

A recent op-ed in The New York Times rightly pointed out that in autocratic Ethiopia, where China's EXIM bank provided a $1.5 billion loan to overhaul the country's telecommunication system, free media are struggling. Opposition blogs are blocked and the prime minister argued that Ethiopia has a right to jam the international broadcaster Voice of America because of its "destabilizing propaganda."

China has been accused of providing the technology and expertise to make these forms of censorship possible. A few years earlier, however, it was the expertise provided by Cisco Systems and Hughes Networks, two companies based in the U.S., that allowed the Ethiopian government to develop WoredaNet, one of Africa's most ambitious and problematic e-government projects.WoredaNet, which stands for "Network of district administrations," employs the same protocol the Internet is based on, as well as satellite communications, to allow ministers, civil servants, and trainers in the capital to videoconference with the regional and district administrations and instruct local officials on what they should be doing and how. As an indication of the sensitivity of the project, the servers necessary to manage videoconferencing are installed in the office of the prime minister. On the one hand, WoredaNet has increased the presence of the state on the ground, as a political entity, but also as a service provider. On the other hand, in a country such as Ethiopia, where the distinction between the party and the state is increasingly blurry, WoredaNet has been also used to mobilize support in critical moments, such as before an election.

But if we turn to West Africa and we consider, for example, Chinese investments in the media and telecommunication sector in Ghana, a country with some of the "freest media" on the continent, a very different picture emerges. China has recently provided $180 million to help the Ghanaian government's efforts to use new communication technologies to increase the efficiency of the state apparatus, and regularly offers scholarships to Ghanaian journalists who are willing to continue their studies in China. This is part of a broader scheme of agreements that are turning Ghana, where large oil reserves have recently been discovered, into the recipient of one of the most generousassistance packages ever offered by China to an African country. However, according to research we have been conducting at the University of Oxford and that will be published later this year, the increasing role of China appears to have had no effects on Ghana's media system, as China's approach to the media seems to have little appeal for Ghanaian policy makers and media professionals. As a journalist working for the Daily Graphic, Ghana's leading newspaper, pointed out: "People in Ghana do not care too much about which political model China is proposing. It is the people in the West who care more about a rising China."

China's presence in the media sector in Africa is still very recent and it has been characterized by trial and error. Much can change in the coming years, but these examples point to some important trends.

First, while significant attention has been focused on China's role in providing tools to autocratic regimes to control citizens and filter content, it is companies based in the West that still dominate this market. Software produced in North America continues to be the cyber-weapon of choice for many authoritarian regimes trying to censor the Internet, and it is a program produced in Dublin, not in Beijing, that has been recently used by the Syrian government to disrupt SMS used by demonstrators to mobilize. The demand from authoritarian regimes for tools to control and censor has been high for a long time and Chinese companies simply entered an already crowded market. While it may be easier to criticize the government in Beijing because of the greater control it tends to exercise over Chinese high-tech companies, from the perspective of African citizens it makes little difference whether it is because of the hypocrisy of Western capitalism or China's readiness to provide what it is asked for by its African partners that their voices are silenced.

Second, looking beyond Africa's autocratic regimes to other African countries where China has supported the media and telecommunication sectors, there appears to be little evidence that China is attempting to export its model abroad or is changing the balance against freedom of expression. In countries that are committed to use new communication technologies to support a participatory and inclusive development process, China's lack of conditionality in providing aid can arguably offer local actors more resources and room to experiment while combining ideas and technologies from different contexts.

China is certainly having an important role in Africa's media space, but to date the debate has been affected by too many prejudices and assumptions about China's intentions rather than concentrating on how China is either helping or hindering African countries to achieve their social and development goals. A less ideologically charged debate would help identifying more compatibilities and complementaries where many see threats. We are no longer in a Cold War situation where African countries must choose sides and a variety of partnerships are becoming possible.

Follow Iginio Gagliardone on Twitter: www.twitter.com/iginioe