Current affairs publications are littered with reports of horror and tragedy in Somalia, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia and the Darfur region in Sudan, and the multiple accounts of good in African nations are buried beneath a never-ending portrayal of a Sub-Saharan dystopia. The broadest stereotypical snapshots of African politics—especially political leadership—revolve around images of corruption, incompetence, venal human rights abuses and a myriad of impoverished countries governed with an iron fist by a series of undemocratic strongmen. Joaquim Chissano however, as “the antithesis of the stereotypical African Big Man”, defies such a hackneyed and dismal caricature.

frequent question which faces development theorists is that of governance. Constantly we are told that the key to development is “good governance” - that is, strong institutions capable of fulfilling their roles, an emphasis on the effective enforcement of the rule of law and some level of participation of concerned sectional groups in the policy making process. Yet we are also faced with the question of how to govern developing states. In a state with strong ethnic, class or ideological divisions, a democratic system of participatory government faces serious difficulties in generating and enforcing policy with any effectiveness as it faces too many barriers to do so – all parties must be placated at the expense of coherent action, whilst short-term accountability to the electorate denies the opportunity for long-term economic reforms which may be damaging before they take effect. At the other end of the scale, the idea of an authoritarian, perhaps military, system of rule raises many ethical questions – what are the limits of legitimate rule for the purposes of development?

While we find ourselves agreeing with many of the astute political comments that John Gray’s Black Mass proposes, we are left questioning many of the author’s philosophical conclusions. His comprehensible and persuasive belief that religion and American foreign policy should not mix is something we can only concur with, and his assertion that Christianity and a Christian concept of utopia have harmfully influenced the USA’s stance towards the world in recent decades seems equally attractive.

The Iranian regime – financier of Iraqi insurgency, oppressor of its people and emerging nuclear threat – is the subject of international condemnation from the United States and Europe alike. As a pariah on the axis of evil, it boasts consistent abuse of human rights and a theocratic regime which stifles all political opposition. Add to this its profoundly destabilising effect on the Middle East and the anti-western rhetoric of its leaders and we have a regime that is not supposed to be a friend of our government.

It is a sad yet understandable truth that most people switch off when they hear the word ‘Iraq’. As I research this article, I read that a lorry has been driven into the heart of the old Sadriya market of central Baghdad. It was carrying an entire ton of explosives, extraordinary even by Baghdad standards. The explosion ripped through the crowded marketplace, shattering stalls and leaving a huge crater which was the grave for one hundred and thirty people. It injured a further three hundred. Despite the fact that this death toll was more than double that of the July 7th London bombings (which killed fifty-two), it is highly unlikely that you will recall the incident. On the day it occurred your eyes, like mine, may have flittered over the headline, blank and unsurprised, but that would be it.

Technological advances have rid humanity of many of its most malignant scourges. Some diseases, like Smallpox, have been virtually eradicated. Ancient killers like Measles, Rubella, and Polio have been tamed beyond recognition, in the ‘developed’ world at least. There are even optimistic whispers among the scientific community of the “Achilles’ heel of HIV” revealing a potential Aids vaccine. Science however, has only stretched so far. Millions of hearts will break tonight as loved ones slip from their grasp. Many families will watch in agony as those closest to them slowly crumble into a coma or vegetative state; stripped of dignity, paralysed by pain, an incapacitated shell of their former selves. Technology cannot save all.

The global arms trade is the largest sector of spending in the world. It is worth around a trillion dollars anually, a figure that corresponds to about $170 for every person on the planet, and increases every year. The income generated for producers of weapons is massive, and the geopolitical importance of strategic arms sales cannot be overstated. At what costs do we pursue economic and strategic supremacy using this deadly trade? Can we ever justify such actions?

If you are celebrating this year as the bicentennial of an end to slave trading in this country, you are celebrating a false cessation. In our consciousness, the dust which covers the exchange of human life as property also buries the fascinations of ancient wars, witch hunts and the bubonic plague. The two-hundredth anniversary of its abolition is far too late a date to scrape away this forgetful apparition and finely scrutinise the wretched reality underneath. Today, slavery is still thriving and alive beneath the surface.

In an election process as exclusive as the Vatican’s papal conclave, the South Korean diplomat Ban Ki-moon will soon succeed Kofi Annan as the Secretary General of the United Nations. In his acceptance speech to the General Assembly, Mr Ban stated his intention to oversee a “common agenda of reform and revitalization… We should demand more of ourselves as well as of our Organization”. The topic of reform has clambered up the agenda of the General Assembly in recent years in correspondence with the persistent criticism which has been directed towards the United Nations. Criticism and opposition are inevitable for an organisation so unquestionably consequential. David J. Whittaker wryly claims that the UN “muddles through watched by ‘uncritical lovers and unloving critics’”. It seems that in recent years the UN’s position in global public opinion has been perpetually undermined by consistent rhetorical attack, as it has been criticised variously as irrelevant, inefficient, incompetent and illegitimate.

In 2004, the ranks of the European Union were swelled by the admission of ten largely central European states. In January of 2007 two more countries–Romania and Bulgaria–will accede, bringing membership to twenty seven. In the face of power wielded by a central European government over an unprecedented number of people–and with an expanding body of competencies–questions concerning the reach of its authority have never been more pressing.

Palestine is an area which has been troubled by sectarian violence, racial hatred and religious extremism for several generations. With a cycle of violence stretching back over a century, will there ever be a peaceful and long-lasting conciliation between the Israelis and the Palestinians?
The history of this conflict serves only to highlight how desperate the […]

I’m currently looking at a copy of Jeffrey Sachs’s The End of Poverty and there is one burning question I can’t dislodge: What, exactly, qualifies Bono to write introductions to books on global economics? Presumably not his extended research or in-depth knowledge; I certainly couldn’t claim it was no better than mine, but I’m somewhat dubious as to the insight he can give into Jeffrey Sachs’s economic theories. Then again, what qualifies me to have an opinion on world hunger and the moral status of the World Trade Organisation? I have been fairly vocal on these subjects. I believe I have a right, perhaps even a duty, to stand in the street and yell my ill-founded opinions to the world but, unlike Jeffrey Sachs, I am not Special Advisor to the UN Secretary-General. My credentials for valid political commentary are basically that I am not a rock star. Bono’s credentials are precisely the opposite. Political causes become cool. Celebrities are expected to make pronouncements on them and we’re all supposed to express our opinion, provided it’s the right one. The Make Poverty History campaign and the Iraq war are probably the most obvious recent examples. Kids were yelling about global injustice in the street. Political apathy didn’t seem like such a problem when town centres were shut down because anti-war protesters were blockading the roads. Bono’s Mother Teresa antics may seem a bit pretentious, but does it matter if it means we can answer in the affirmative to the question, “does anybody care about the starving children?” We have a popular culture, or at least a very widespread sub-culture, in which we are supposed to care. But what kind of culture is it?

It has been 35 years since President Nixon declared drugs to be “America’s public enemy number one”. The latest manifestation of the “ideology of prohibition” has since seen much of the world consumed by the “War on Drugs”. Drug prohibition has seen such illicit substances as heroin, cocaine and ecstasy outlawed, and its consumers universally criminalised, condemned as social pariahs. Through innumerable sound-bites, politicians and officials have claimed that outlawing illicit substances keeps the innocent safe, and the drugs off our streets. George W. Bush recently proclaimed, “Illegal drugs are the enemy of ambition and hope… When we fight the war on drugs, we also fight the war on terror”. The strategy is attractive to voters because it deals in absolutes: No Drugs, No Tolerance, at any time, in any place. It is assumed that utter prevention and complete expulsion will control the drug problem. Prohibition is sold to the public in these terms, and the illusion is lapped up. However, the substance of prohibition does not support the illusion. As in America in the 1920s, prohibition has failed. The War on Drugs has been a massive and tragic failure which has been perpetrated by fraudulent, superficial sound-bites. All counter-arguments and critiques are branded and demonised as soft on drugs, and soft on crime. The truth is stifled behind the rhetoric of base emotional pandering rather than rational debate.

Since Russia’s re-invasion of her rebellious Chechen province in 1999, officially 5,362 Russian military personnel have been killed on operations there. Unofficially this figure is estimated at being nearer 11,000 with 25,000 wounded (Russian Union of Soldiers’ Mothers). The number of civilians killed is conservatively believed to be approximately 20,000 dead with many more displaced and made homeless. These figures stand as a damning indictment of the failure of Russia’s “Counter-terrorist” operations and attempts to restore order to this small satellite state. By comparison to the above casualty figures, the cost of the unpopular Coalition operation in Iraq appears almost light–around 2,600 Coalition soldiers. There have in fact been two “Chechen wars” in the last two decades (one in 1994 and another from 1999) and Russia’s policies and the performance of her security forces reveal much of the change and continuity in post-soviet Russia.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was established by the UN Security Council resolution 827 on 25 May 1993. Since its establishment, on hundred and sixty one people have been indicted for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, and yet of these only one hundred and thirty three have appeared before the tribunal to date and only forty-five have been found guilty. The question that arises is why only a minority of the perpetrators have been sentenced and how in some cases they are still able to evade arrest. After all, it has been over fifteen years since the wars in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Kosovo started.

On 15 December 2005 the last United Nations peacekeepers (largely made up of Pakistani troops) symbolically handed over to the newly trained Republic of Sierra Leone Army in Sierra Leone’s capital Freetown. This marked the end of a turbulent UN intervention in what has been one of Africa’s most war ravaged states and subsequently the country with one of the world’s lowest life expectancies at only 34. This war is unfortunately a far from unique story in recent African history.

Absolute truth is an unfashionable concept these days. Fortunately, I’ve never been fashionable before now, so it seems a belief in absolutes will not change my status as ‘not quite Gucci, darling’. What we go in for today, as you’re doubtless aware, is ‘local truth’, the idea that everyone’s truth, stemming from their own experience […]

Lord Salisbury was one of the most successful politicians in British history. During a 53-year parliamentary career he was leader of the Conservative party from 1881 to 1902 and Prime Minister for 14 years, longer than any other PM since the Earl of Liverpool. At home he was considered the embodiment of Victorian values, abroad as one of the world’s premier statesmen. However, ironically for one who to his contemporaries permeated political life he has all but disappeared from the popular consciousness. This is partly due to his peculiarly negative political philosophy, opposing nearly all change, yielding only when positions became politically untenable and to pre-empt further change. Prior to becoming PM, Lord Salisbury was also a prolific journalist, writing 1,500,000 words between 1856 and 1866, yet nowhere in this body of writing was his intransigence more evident than in his visceral opposition to democracy.