Currently, 65% of the world is in recession, an amount greater than at any time since 1960. The International Monetary Fund [IMF] recently stated that the downturn is likely to be “unusually severe and long-lasting.” The recession is likely to starve developing countries of their resources and the Fund predicts that these fledgling economies may face shortages of investments for many years to come.

The IMF also stated that effective and internationally coordinated actions would be necessary for any improvement in the global economic situation. A report explained: “Shrinking economic activity has put further pressure on banks’ balance sheets as asset values continue to downgrade, threatening their capital adequacy and further discouraging fresh lending. Thus, credit growth is slowing, and even turning negative, adding even more downward pressure on economic activity.”

The effects of the economic crisis are already felt on a global scale but it is especially harsh on charities and organizations catering to sub-Saharan Africa, due to the fact that a large number depend on donations made by their members. If the individual donors have no money to give to philanthropic causes, these nonprofits will be unable to fund their programs. The IMF has made warnings regarding foreign aid decreases in the region and already many of these organizations are going out of business.

The Fund’s Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn said, “According to the World Bank, over 50 million people in low income countries, many of whom live in Africa, could be thrown back into absolute poverty – with obvious consequences for other social ills, like sickness and infant mortality. The economic and political challenges facing Africa are clearly enormous.”

In an effort to help curb these challenges, the United States has pledged to double development aid to the area by next year. As a result of a pledge that was made by the members of the G-8 in 2005, the nation will double funds previously allocated to sub-Saharan Africa with the goal of $8.7 billion by 2010.

At the G-20 meeting in London this month, Geithner emphasized President Obama’s intentions to work with Congress to boost U.S. aid. He explained that the administration plans to “provide nearly half a billion dollars in immediate assistance to vulnerable populations and double support for agricultural development to more than one billion dollars in 2010 so that we can give people the tools they need to life themselves out of poverty.”

Without the help of those who are able to provide them with assistance, the fragile economic status of nations in sub-Saharan Africa will continue to worsen. It is necessary for governments and organizations to collectively prevent a domino-effect of countries falling as casualties to the global economic crisis.

The U.S. is presently not a part of the ICC, so it does not have to follow the jurisdiction of the ICC. Yet, as a world power and a leader in promoting freedom and equality, many would agree that a stronger stance on arresting and persecuting Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir should be taken by the U.S. The U.S. State Department, during a press release on March 30, 2009, made a comment on the concern of such a warm welcome for al-Bashir by the Arab League. The State Dept. said that the Arab League meeting should have been a way for the League to express its condemnation of the Sudanese president, his actions, and show support for the ICC's decision and rejection of the current violence that has been ongoing in Sudan. This was hardly a direct answer, but a way of skirting around the subject. Directly quoting the U.S. State Dept.:

"The presence of President Bashir at this conference should be used as an opportunity to bring forth the international opprobrium [blame] to what is happening in Darfur and in South Sudan."

One would have to wonder how the U.S. State Department could answer the question of concern by the White House, and yet not answer a direct question about whether or not any action would be taken towards the Arab League for taking such a clear stance behind al-Bashir. Can't we just have a clear answer? It seems that despite the United States supporting the arrest of al-Bashir, little is being done by the U.S. to voice concerns that he remains free to roam about Africa, the Middle East and the world. This Sunday (March 29, 2009) al-Bashir attended the Arab League's meeting in Qatar, where other Arab leaders have all, in unison, declared their support for al-Bashir. The secretary-general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, said:

"We emphasize our solidarity to the Sudan and our dismissal and rejection of the decision handed down by the International Criminal Court [ICC].

(Read full story at Aljazeera.net)

Of course this concern or action by the Arab League did not happen as some may have hoped. The U.S. should be standing behind their support for the arrest and prosecution of this oppressive ruler who has allowed the starvation, rapes, and murders of thousands of his own people. It should be expected that a country such as the U.S. would pressure other countries to follow through on the arrest warrant that has been issued for al-Bashir. Of course it seems that the U.S. is not willing to publicly pressure countries of which al-Bashir has recently visited to arrest and extradite al-Bashir in order to achieve justice.

According to the New York Times and other media sources indicted Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir has visited with Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. Bashir has not been deterred by the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court. He visited Eritrea on Monday and is expected to attend an Arab League summit meeting in Qatar next week.

Neither the State Department nor the Whitehouse has commented on Bashir's travels and defiance of the Court's jurisdiction, other than to say that he is not welcomed in the United States. State Department spokesperson Robert Wood, when asked if the U.S. is encouraging other nations to arrest Bashir dodged a clear response and said:

"Well, first and foremost, we're not a party, as you know, to the Rome Statute. There are countries that are parties to the Rome Statute, and they have obligations, international obligations under that statute."

In fact other than a supportive statement by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, the White House has basically withheld comment on the ICC until it completes a review of U.S. policy regarding the Court. The administration should finish this policy review quickly. It should call for extensive and thorough U.S. cooperation with the Court and support for its prosecutions and trials. It should support U.S. participation in the Court's meetings. And it should make clear that U.S. relations with the Court are in an entirely new era. The historic ICC arrest warrant for Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir makes these steps especially urgent.

In FY09 the U.S. will supply Egypt with $1.3 billion in military financing. Ideally, Congress should condition this funding to ensure Egyptian cooperation with the apprehension of war criminals like Bashir. At the very least the U.S. should quickly state its desire for Cairo and other Arab League nations to cooperate with the Court.

The United States is now in the odd and unsustainable position of strongly endorsing the most important action that the ICC has ever taken while evading any commitment to support or participate in it as an institution. While Secretary of State Clinton has been hindered by the slow confirmation process to bring on new political staff, she should not allow the United States to stand mute on the sidelines while allowing a mastermind of systematic mass-murder and rapes to freely roam the world and flaunt the jurisdiction of the Court and the U.N. Security Council which authorized the Court's actions in Sudan.

Thanks to all our Partners who joined us March 14th for our Partners Call on Darfur. Niemat Ahmadi of SaveDarfur joined us to give us the latest information on the situation there. Unfortunately, President Al-Bashir has disconnected many telephone lines and internet connections, in order to keep information from getting from Darfur to the outside world. Ms. Ahmadi told us about this very worrisome development and urged our Partners to press U.S. officials to take action quickly. She said,

"This is the right time for world leaders to show leadership. What's going on in Darfur is a humanitarian crisis, so it is the responsibility of world leaders to help."

See what Ms. Ahmadi had to say to the UN Security Council.

Today the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant against Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir (CGS just issues a press release and an action alert .) The warrant accuses the president of two counts of war crimes and five counts of crimes against humanity in Darfur, by ordering government troops as well as Janjaweed militia to engage in a systematic campaign of murder, rape and torture against members of the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa groups. The Court has ordered government officials to hand over President Al-Bashir for trial on these charges, and asks all nations to help bring the president to justice.

This warrant is an example of actions that the Court was specifically created to take, in order to hold the world's most heinous criminals accountable for their actions. It proves that no one, including a head of state, is above the law.

The United States should immediately provide all assistance to the Court in apprehending President Al-Bashir, by taking him into custody if he enters our airspace, waters or territory; by freezing all economic and/or military aid to the Sudanese government until Sudan complies with this warrant; by using diplomacy to pressure President Al-Bashir and other nations to comply with the ICC demands; and contributing our enormous resources to this investigation to ensure that justice is served.

However, before the U.S. can credibly pressures other nations to hand Al-Bashir over to the Court, it needs to do 3 things:

• reinstate its signature on the ICC treaty;
• take a seat as an observer at the Court's governing body; and
• formally begin to cooperate with other investigations the Court is conducting in the DRC, Uganda, and eslewhere.

We need to take these steps not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it will be difficult for other nations to take us seriously when we urge them to abide by the Court's rulings. You can help spread the word by taking action.

What happens when extreme religious fervor mixes with entrenched communal beliefs in black magic? - Innocent children are stigmatized for bringing misery to the community. This is not a new phenomenon. For years, villagers in Nigeria's rural communities have attributed their woes and problems to the sorcery of their children. Once branded as "witch children," these youngsters, ranging from as young as five years to older teens, are accused of being possessed and bringing misery to their families. So central is this practice to the community that the parents are often the ones who identify and comply with the preacher's verdict. Once an accusation is made by the preacher, the branding follows the child throughout life unless he/she has been successfully "exorcised." Such "exorcisms" are usually a thin veil for the abuse and torture of the child. Seventeen year old Uma Eke is a perfect example of the cruel torture such children are subjected to. As one of the accused, she had a 3-inch nail driven through her skull in an attempt to force out a confession. She is now brain dead.

In addition to subjecting the child to physical and emotional abuse, preachers also often charge exorbitant rates for a single exorcism - usually 400,000 Naira ($300); and if the parents are unable to cover the costs, the child is held captive until an exchange of funds is completed. In the mean time, the child is chained and starved, and eventually they themselves come to believe that they are possessed.

It is highly disturbing and unsettling that such a practice is still carried out, especially on the youngest members of society. Explanations for the practice usually stem from the Christian belief that people are possessed, and hence commit evil acts. But there is nothing "Christian" about torturing an innocent child, scamming a family, and ruining all these lives in the bargain. These communities must be educated about their practices, and the children must be provided with a safe haven. Recently the UK's Channel 4 broadcast a documentary on the practice in Nigeria, and followed activist Gary Foxcroft in his mission to save these children. Foxcroft's charity provides aid and relief to some of these children, and in addition he has strongly lobbied the local governors for attention and help. Although he has made some progress, it is slow and tedious, and much more needs to be done by the wider international community.

By Lenka Andrysova and Simone Pereira

Scholars all around the world have been searching for years for reasons why most countries on the African continent lack democracy. Tony Leon, former Leader of the Opposition in South Africa, and now a visiting fellow at the CATO institute, identified some reasons for the persistence of non-democratic regimes. In addition to poorly structured judiciaries, ineffective distribution of foreign aid, inefficient opposition, fiscal disconnect between voters and political governing elites (only small proportion of voters pay taxes and therefore the government is not as invested in its citizens' interests) and strong presidential systems, Leon identified oil production as a key deterrent to democracy.

The impact of oil production on democracy in Africa deserves more scrutiny. The situation here is comparable to what many scholars have discovered in the Middle East, and in Eastern European nations that are in transition from communism to democracy. The income generated from the export of oil is sufficient to fund the activities of the government, and hence national leaders feel no need to set up a tax structure. The lack of a cohesive tax system ensures that the leaders need not respond to the basic needs of the people, like public education and health care, creating a state where the people must fend for themselves. The erosion of the need for funding of the government by the people also effectively eradicates the accountability the government has to the people in exchange for taxes, insulating those in power from the responsibility to their constituents. In Africa, this problem has been exacerbated by the dramatic poverty of the majority vis-?á-vis the wealth of those in power.

Interestingly, while we are all aware of the problems of oil producing nations, very little has been achieved in resolving the issues. Countries which disagree with regimes in Africa need to take some active measures. For instance, the United States, which is, according to CIA one of the biggest importers of oil in many African countries, has a lot of power to change things. The U.S. buys the largest oil proportion in "not free" states, such as Nigeria, Algeria , and Equatorial Guinea. Purchasing more than half of Nigeria's exports, the U.S. indirectly supports the existing government which is able to maintain control because of the taxes being levied on oil exporting companies and on exports themselves, and not because of any direct accountability to its own citizens. Moreover, it is important to take into account that oil and petroleum products make a living for a minor fraction of population and as a result, oil industry does help only the already rich and not the country as a whole.

If the United States, along with other oil consumers, disagree with African big-man governments, they should at least try to stop worsening the situation. Without interfering into domestic issues, such as taxation systems, several solutions might be suggested. For instance, countries could export oil only from democratic states, or could also limit their dependence upon oil, for example, by developing and spreading renewable energy technologies. Unless one interrupts financing the old regimes, other solutions calling for more democracy in Africa might come in vain.

Nearly half of the countries in the world are demanding that the International Criminal Court postpone prosecution of the Sudanese President Umar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir according to an October story in the Economist. To reach this end, these countries call for the United Nations Security Council to declare that the actual arrest of Mr Bashir is a threat to the peace, breach of peace or an act of aggression as stated in the UN Charter. However, what is at stake if the current situation in the region could not be described as peaceful and stable at all.

What is more, it is President Bashir who has partially contributed to the disastrous state in Sudan. Bearing this in mind, the International Criminal Court (ICC) charged him with most serious crimes. Mr Bashir is facing the accusation of committing the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur, which makes his case unprecedented. That is to say, nobody before him stood in front of the ICC wearing a burden of triggering genocide. As a result of his decision, 98 percent of the villages inhabited by the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa people are said to be attacked and destroyed. According to ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the Sudanese president should be held responsible for internal displacement of 2.7 million Sudanese during five-year conflict, out of which estimated 300,000 lost their lives. Despite these serious claims, 53-member African Union (AU) and 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) stand by him.

These Afro-Arabic organizations representing a remarkable part of the world population suggest that the arrest of the Sudanese leader would undermine the stability in the region. They are right as to that fact, as the removal of Mr Bashir would definitely alter the situation in Sudan, one of the most unstable countries in the entire world, where unfettered warlordism flourishes. Clearly, as Bashir is the top man in his country, his prosecution would fundamentally shatter the Sudanese political pyramid. The Sudan's president is not only chief of state, but also head of government. He even substitutes for the legislative body, since the Parliament has not been absent since 1999 when Mr Bashir himself dissolved both chambers. Hence, putting the most powerful man in the country into jail would mean that Sudan would lose all the political leadership over night. This would lead, according to heads of member states of the AU and OIC, to a catastrophe.

However, having arrested the Sudanese president, political changes in Khartoum could spark much needed reforms in the country. If Mr Bashir was convicted, the power would be likely transferred into the hands of the existing First Vice President Salva Kiir, who is in favor of independence of the Southern Sudan, or to the Second Vice President Ali Osman Mohamed Taha, who would probably initiate some changes, too. As a result, Sudan could start a new era of development with thus far virtually unknown leaders. If the ICC does insist on arresting the Sudanese president, this failed state in the third world could be given a chance for a much desirable change.

The argumentation of the African and Arabic nations which lies in retaining status quo should not convince the UN Council since it also did not take into account that Sudan would soon undergo some changes anyways. By July 2009 Sudanese people are slated to hold elections for their president and representatives. If the choice of new governing elites were to turn democratic, a wind of change would surely blow off the president who seized power during a 1989 military coup.

Similarly, Human Rights Watch, an organization following development of this case since 2001, strongly believes that demands of the AU and OIC are irrelevant. According to their report, a deferral of an ICC investigation risks legitimizing political interference with the work of a judicial institution and could set a dangerous precedent for accused in other situations. Therefore, any exception must be extremely rare, which should be valid for the Sudanese case as well.

Following the negotiations that took place the week of September 8, 2008, the political leaders in Zimbabwe have finally reached a deal to share power. Coming out of negotiations Friday, September 12, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai were smiling as they told reporters of the deal that had been brokered. Although details were only released the following Monday, both leaders expressed their satisfaction with the talks.

On Monday, September 15, the three leaders of the main political parties hosted a news conference during which copies of the deal were released to the public. Mugabe (ZANU-PF) will remain President of the country, while Tsvangirai (MDC) will assume the role of Prime Minister, and Arthur Mutambara of the Movement for Democratic Change breakaway faction MDC-M, will be the deputy Prime Minister. The cabinet will consist of 31 ministers, 15 from Mugabe's ZANU-PF, 13 representing Tsvangirai's MDC and 3 allotted to Mutambara's MDC-M. The deal brokered is such that in the event of a vacancy in the cabinet, the position must be filled by a representative of the same party, in order to ensure that the coalition structure remains intact until the next general elections are held.

Although all signatories of the agreement have expressed their approval of the outcome, international states are hesitant to lend their support. The US and UK are still to approve of the deal, and are reportedly awaiting some regional stability before their formal approval is lent. This will be the first time since 1986 that another political leader has been able to successfully negotiate a deal with Mugabe. Back then it was Joshua Nkomo, Mugabe's rival from Matabeleland in the south, who represented the incumbent's biggest political hurdle. That time, however, Nkomo failed to secure a fair deal and his ZUMA party ended up being consumed entirely by ZANU, to become ZANU-PF, Political Front. If Nkomo's example stands as testimony to the success of negotiations with Mugabe, then the Zimbabwean people have a lot to worry about. After all these years of struggle and violence, it remains to be seen whether Tsvangirai and Mutambara will get the opportunity to freely express their concerns in government.

But now is not a time to be skeptical of the future. Despite the many problems that arose since the initial elections in March this year, it remains a positive omen to see that a deal has been brokered, and that members of all participating parties are committed to making it work. With an express commitment to abide by the declarations of the UN and to seek the aid of the African Union and other African bodies whenever necessary, these Zimbabwean leaders have provided a measure of hope to a very difficult situation.

Monday, September 8 2008, saw the resumption of power sharing talks between political rivals Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai in Zimbabwe. Following the failure of a clear victory for either candidate in the March 2008 elections, talks have since been launched in the capital to reach a negotiated settlement over power distribution.

When elections were first held on March 29 this year, it was the Movement for Democratic Change's party leader Morgan Tsvangirai who claimed victory. He had successfully won the first round of elections, but not with a wide enough margin to secure immediate control. The second round of elections was slated to take place on June 22, but Tsvangirai pulled out just days before, handing victory to Robert Mugabe. The insecurity in the political arena has mirrored itself in society, with violence breaking out between Zimbabwe African National Union - Political Front (ZANU-PF) and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) supporters. In the six months following the initial elections, over 200 Zimbabweans have been killed in clashes with government forces. International criticism, stemming largely from countries like the United Kingdom, France and the United States, has also drawn attention to the desperation that plagues the country.

In June this year former South African President Nelson Mandela broke his silence on the issue by criticizing Zimbabwe's "tragic failure of leadership." Mandela's statement came just hours before Britain's Queen Elizabeth II revoked Mugabe's Knighthood. Despite the mounting international pressure, however, Mugabe appears almost unphased as he proceeds for discussions with Tsvangirai.

While there is a mutual consensus that Robert Mugabe will remain President, the main issue of contention arises around the strength of the role of Prime Minister, to be assumed by Morgan Tsvangirai. While Mugabe's ZANU-PF are strongly urging for a largely ceremonial role, Tsvangirai has stated that he will settle for nothing less than the transfer of authority from the Presidential to the Prime Ministerial role. Tsvangirai is also pushing for his party to acquire control over the Ministry of Home Affairs, which will guarantee him greater control over domestic policing matters. This time the talks are being mediated by South African President Thabo Mbeki. Mugabe has been quoted as saying that if the talks do eventually fail or are not concluded by the end of this week, he will go ahead and form his own cabinet. Tsvangirai, on the other hand, has declared his determination to let no such thing happen, but rather take the people to the polls once again. Either way, neither candidate is backing down until an agreement suitable to their own agendas is achieved.