Women’s International Perspective ~ Uganda

Women’s International Perspective hosted its first ever speaker panel on Friday April 4, 2008, at the Monterey Institute of International Study. The organization, barely one year old at the time of the event offers a woman’s perspective of violence against women and children around the globe.

Joyce Laker, a human rights worker and women’s advocate in Uganda shared her experiences about violence against women and children. Uganda, known for its child soldiers has been riddled with violence and conflict for decades. Forced to join the armed resistance of the Lord’s Resistance Army, children as young as ten years old are often forced to kill their own parents first, to sometimes drink their blood or cannibalize their bodies, and then enter into a never ending cycle of violence.

As sociologist and scholar Riane Eisler points out, violence against women and children around the world is actually, “normal,” and calls it, “the most ubiquitous human rights violation in the world.” As evidenced by Joyce Laker’s experience in Uganda, Riane Eisler’s point carries great weight.

Joyce Laker shared alarming statistics representing reported sexual violence. Throughout Uganda, anywhere from 26 to 52 percent of the female population has experienced sexual violence. However, as Laker points out, these numbers are likely not accurate as the reporting and investigation of a rape for women is costly and tedious at its best, and further degrading at its worst. Women forced to pay police to conduct the investigation at rates of 3.00 for the police to come and take the report, 10.00 to provide transportation for the police to come take the report and 20.00 to provide transportation for the perpetrator to the police station.

These human rights violations and atrocities are rarely, if ever reported in United States mainstream media and do not gain the attention they deserve. As American media outlets and politicians continue to ignore developments in Africa, the Bush Administration has dramatically ramped up the militarization of the continent since 2002, flushing the area with over $130 million dollars in military sales, financing, and training expenditures for what the US considers strategic for the “war on terror.”

However, as the think tank Foreign Policy In Focus rightly queries, the fundamental question for many is whether the US will utilize this increased military presence to support freedom, self determination, growth, prosperity, and accountability on behalf of the majority of nearly one billion people in Africa or if this new initiative will instead serve to oversee surrogate nations whose leadership is accountable first to U.S security and economic interest. (Gerald Le Melle, “Africa Policy Outlook 2008,” (Waahsington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, February 7, 2008).

Under the Bush administration, AFRICOM’s (Africa Command) structure would “place humanitarian work previously done by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development under the directive of the Department of Defense.” (Le Melle 2008) As evidenced by circumstances on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and numerous countries around the globe, US interests rarely coincide with human rights, the sickness of the global society in regards to the rights of women and children around the globe should determine which countries the US does and does not call an ally.

As Le Melle points out in the Africa Policy Outlook conclusion, “Despite being the most stretched out campaign in American history, the 2008 presidential election is marked by the typical absence of any serious discussion of Africa. It is as if Africa has already been ceded to the Department of Defense and therefore out of the view of the American public. In contract with the accelerating militarization of the U.S Africa relations described above, this silence is deafening.”

The Integrity of Hillary Clinton

Inּtegּri|ty n. 3. the quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty, and sincerity

 

The meaning and definition of the word integrity seems simple and straightforward, but in the world of American Politics, it is perhaps the most misused, abused, and elusive word spoken. However, the majority of Americans believe, that among desirable personality characteristics in those running for and holding political office, it is by far the most desired.

If there is one particular trait missing from the Hillary Clinton campaign, it is indeed, integrity. On both national and international issues, Clinton is simply one more piece to the Bush/Clinton political sandwich that has destroyed the majority of American ideals. Clearly calculating and career driven, Clinton is obviously not the candidate who will restore America’s reputation in the world as the beacon of freedom, humanity, and all that is right but will rather lead this nation down its continued path to Imperialism through Corporatism.

For any American genuinely concerned about these issues to hear support for the Clinton campaign based on Clinton’s sex is truly concerning. In spite of her voting record, continued elusive language in terms of the occupation of Iraq, the shrinking middle class, the value of the dollar, increasing power for corporations, illegal detention and torture of detainees, repeated violations of the Constitution, and her position on energy independence, she continues to enjoy broad support among some in the Progressive Movement. One only need look closely at Clinton’s choice of language to determine that she continues to address these issues in a rather superficial way, lacking the integrity that America so badly needs.

Immediately before the primaries in New Hampshire, American media outlets focused the world’s attention on the fact that Clinton showed some emotion during a question and answer period.

Reminiscent of the absurd question asked during the Democratic debate in Nevada, where a young college student inquired as to whether Hillary preferred pearls or diamonds, a woman in New Hampshire asked, “As a woman, I know it’s hard to get out of the house and to get ready… and my question is very personal: how do you do it? How do you keep upbeat and so wonderful?” To this, Clinton answered, “It’s not easy, and I could not do it if I just didn’t passionately believe it was the right thing to do…I have had so many opportunities from this country – I just don’t want us to fall back. This is very personal for me … it is not just political… I see what’s happening… we have to reverse it.”

Sadly missing from any emotion Clinton has ever shown are tears for fallen soldiers or their families, the destruction of the entire society and nation of Iraq, which has killed thousands, and made millions homeless and impoverished,  and the continued assault on American civil liberties.

In fact, it is on these very important issues that Clinton continues to lead the American people towards the Bush doctrine. This is evidenced by her support of Imperialistic Bush policies to date, including the Iraq War, a possible attack on Iran and The Patriot Act. Even those who approve of Clinton’s stance on these issues or those finding themselves forgiving of her apparent Bushesque blunderings, an alarm should sound at the clear contradiction between her words and actions.

In her victory speech, Clinton showed a real lack of integrity when she spoke of all that ails America, “The oil companies, the drug companies, the health insurance companies, the predatory student loan companies have had seven years of a president who stands up for them. It’s time we had a president who stands up for all of you. I intend to be that president, to be a president who puts you first, your lives, your families, your children, your futures.”

Nowhere, does Clinton acknowledge that the very corporations she criticizes here are funding her campaign. A short list includes; 18.36 million (representing the largest contributions) from the financial sector, 14.3 million from lawyers and lobbyists representing oil, insurance, pharmaceutical, and lending companies, over 8 hundred thousand from the energy industry, and close to 2.2 million from the military industrial complex and construction companies combined, many of whom are currently operating in Iraq.  

If the staggering numbers alone are not sounding the alarm bells enough for Americans to realize Clinton plans on using her power to enrich the elite in this country further, perhaps a look at Clintons funding in comparison to other presidential hopefuls will. Clinton willingly accepts funds from the defense industry where only John McCain outranks her. In the Oil and Gas industry, Clinton enjoys another cool second place, from lobbyists however; she takes first place leaving all other candidates behind with second in line taking close to half of the funds she has received to date.

Clearly, Clinton’s actions and words do not match, leaving this writer to wonder how any one who wishes the direction of this country to change does not recognize these obvious warning signs. Perhaps the last seven years have left Americans so desperate and dumbfounded; they have decided lies from the mouth of a woman are perhaps easier to swallow, especially if they are followed by a shot of tears.

Cowardly or Complicit?

I remain hopeful that Americans can still rouse themselves to save our democracy. But the time in which to head of financial and moral bankruptcy is growing short.

~ Chalmers Johnson

With the Democratic Congresses approval rating at an all time low, one must wonder, “What are they thinking?” If the Democrats were holding to any kind of democratic philosophy, their direction in government should be clear. The House Speaker herself has stated on many occasions that the Democrats were given a mandate in 2006…to end the Iraq occupation. We should all keep in mind that this mandate includes the cessation of spending like a bunch of drunken sailors on holiday leave.

Yet their contempt for “the will of the people” continues to stand. Americans are no better off than they were under a Republican held majority. These circumstances beg the question, are the Democrats cowardly or complicit? In order to answer this question one must only look to some of the driving forces behind the continued failed policy in Iraq, namely that of private American defense contractors. This particular industry has exploded in recent years, in not only profits, but also the power it wields in politics. During the 2006 election cycle, defense contributions (totaling 17, 923, 5552 dollars) and lobbying efforts (over 40, 000, 000 dollars) has reached an all time high, this number shows a sharp contrast to figures collected as early as 1990 where total contributions equaled 7,069,584 dollars. As the rhetoric continues, around the Iraq debate, the developing pattern is quite clear; as defense spending has risen so have the contributions to candidates.

Interestingly, it appears from current figures the defense industry carries with it one more asset…a crystal ball. In both the “Defense” and “Miscellaneous Defense” categories, lobbying efforts and contributions have shown clear favorability towards Republican candidates. However, this is no longer true. For the 2006 election cycle Republicans acquired approximately 65% of contributions where as Democrats received only 34%. Already for the 2008 election cycle, Democrats are gaining strength in this sector. As of today, December 29, 2007, Democrats have received 52% of the contributions from defense contractors. In contrast, the Republicans have only received 48%.

Perhaps we can surmise that Democrats are neither cowardly nor powerless as so many would have us believe. With a majority in both house’s, and more members of the Republican Party recognizing support for this endless war is political suicide, clearly a solution exists. Just as money and greed are justifying the continuance of the Occupation of Iraq, it can end it as well. Democrats have the ability to end this occupation; it appears they simply lack the will to do so. With the presidential election around the corner, it would behoove all of us who wish to see this war end to examine the candidates and their loyalty to defense contractor profits. To date, every candidate both Republican and Democrat have accepted money in the thousands from this industry. That is every candidate save two: Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

As evidenced in recent years, money wields greater power than the will of the American people, however, the people continue to hold the power of the vote, perhaps it is time we used it wisely.