Out of Harm’s Way: Linking Disasters and Development

This news story appeared in a number of newspapers this week, and while the content of the article makes it clear that these allegations are mere “rumour” at this point in time, it does raise questions about why journalists publish such stories…too often stories about PNG (and Melanesia more generally) reinforce stereotypes of madness, irrationality etc…why not report on the HIV/AIDS epidemic sweeping through PNG, rather than the alleged hysteria of local people?

Papua New Guinea police to investigate claims AIDS patients buried alive

The Associated Press
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
PORT MORESBY, Papua New Guinea: Police and health workers in Papua New Guinea were investigating unverified claims by an HIV-positive woman that people with AIDS were buried alive by their relatives who could no longer care for them, an official said Tuesday.

Margaret Marabe, who reportedly spent five months working to raise awareness about the disease in the South Pacific nation’s remote Southern Highlands province, said she had seen weary AIDS patients buried alive.

“I saw three people with my own eyes,” Marabe told the Post Courier newspaper for its Monday edition. “When they got very sick and people could not look after them, they buried them.”

The acting director of Papua New Guinea’s National AIDS Council, Romanus Pakure, said police and health workers were being sent to the Southern Highlands to investigate the claims.

However, he questioned why Marabe had not approached the police before taking her story to the media.

“The lady may be a loose cannon; we are not happy it’s come out like this,” he said.

Pakure conceded that the stigma against people with HIV was very strong in the countryside, where education about the disease is scarce.

Similar claims of AIDS killings have been made in the past but none were verified, he said.

“There were reports maybe five to 10 years ago of people being buried alive. There were also reports of people being thrown in the river or burnt alive,” he said.

The council and other health agencies were moving ahead with programs to raise knowledge about HIV/AIDS and teach families how to care for people with the disease, Pakure said.

Marabe could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Anne McPherson, a spokeswoman for the organization where Marabe works as a volunteer, said she had not heard of Marabe’s claims before they appeared in the local newspaper.

Papua New Guinea, which shares an island north of Australia with Indonesia’s easternmost Papua province, is among the hardest-hit countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

Officials have estimated that the adult per capita infection rate lies between 1.28 percent and 2 percent, and have warned that some isolated pockets of the country face HIV rates as high as 30 percent.

I often find myself returning to this poem. It’s by Grace Mera Molisa (Black Stone, 1991). It’s probably controversial, and it obviously doesn’t present the complexity of custom, and it’s somewhat negative…but I still like it…I like it aesthetically and it’s a bit of a touch-stone for me to come back to when people are challenging me about my “right” to be writing on the issues faced by Melanesian women when I’m a white woman.

If it were about my own experiences, I’d change “Custom” to “religion”.

An article in The Age, ‘For Richer, For Poorer‘, looks at the pros and cons of ’slum tourism’.

I’d never heard of this term before reading the article, but it’s meaning is obvious. The context: a three-hour tour of Rocinha favela, one of many shanty towns that cling to hillsides in Rio de Janeiro. One of the aims of the tour is “to show that most residents are ordinary people, not drug lords - yet evidence of the local gang, ADA, is spray-painted on many walls and our guide, very discreetly, points out armed sentries keeping watch for police at the favela’s entry points.” Similar tours now run in India and South Africa. In Mumbai, they go to Dharavi, Asia’s biggest slum, and in Johannesburg to the township of Soweto, where the Oscar-winning film Totsi was set.

Critics of slum tourism - which, due to the derogatory notions of ’slum’, I’m going to re-dub ‘informal settlement tourism’ (!!) - say that it’s exploitative, voyeuristic and an invasion of privacy. I would agree with this…touring underprivileged settlements IS starkly different to touring wealthy settlements, for the simple reason that the underprivileged rarely have the luxury of privacy within their communities, let alone their own homes. They can’t build big walls, they don’t have private bathrooms, couples don’t have private bedrooms…they don’t have the resources to choose to “hide” themselves (and yes, I acknowledge that privacy may be valued differently in different cultures).

On the other hand, these tours are also praised for raising awareness of poverty and bringing tourism dollars to communities in need. I can acknowledge the former - so many tourists to places like Vanuatu or Thailand are either completely unaware of, or have very little idea about, the poverty that they are actually benefiting from. I’ve seen white American uni students berate tuk-tuk drivers and complain that Thailand is “too expensive”, completely forgetting that the tuk-tuk driver is probably struggling to make a living while they, the “poor” American university student, are enjoying the luxury of international travel. I would, however, be careful of jumping to the conclusion that the presence of tourists in a particular geographical area necessarily means that the local population is benefitting - this applies as much to the “slums” of Rio de Janeiro as it does to the hill tribes of Thailand.

Wow…

Update 1/08/07 - see updated comments below!!

Papua legislative council deliberating microchip regulation for people with
HIV/AIDS

Posted at 00:42 on 25 July, 2007 UTC

The Legislative Council of Indonesia’s Papua province is deliberating a regulation that would see microchips implanted in people living with HIV/AIDS so authorities could monitor their actions.

The Jakarta Post reports that according to Article 35 of the regulation on healthcare in the province, to supervise and control people with HIV/AIDS a detection device is needed to monitor the movements and sexual activities of people with HIV/AIDS.

The article has been condemned by activists and government officials in the province as a gross violation of rights.

Dr John Manansang, a member of the working group deliberating the regulation, told reporters in Jayapura that if the regulation was approved by the council in its present form, the article on microchips would be implemented.

Dr Manansang said the microchips would be imposed on people with HIV/AIDS who practice high-risk behaviors.

However, the Papua chapter of the National AIDS Commission has slammed the proposal as a violation of human rights.

It says any form of identification of people with HIV/AIDS violates human rights

Update: 1 August 2007

Apparently this was a bit of sensationalist journalism. According to emails circulating various e-groups, the Deputy Governor of Papua and other Papuans have dismissed this as fanciful. Apparently the original Jakarta Post article was quoted selectively by Radio NZ (and others). The original articles indicated that the proposal had come from a doctor who was on a working group examining draft health legislation. It also included a statement that the head fo the Papua chapter of the National AIDS Commission - who also happens to be the Deputy Governor! - slammed the proposal as a violation of human rights. Questions were also raised as to who had drafted the regulation.

Here’s the latest article from the Jakarta Post:
Protesters slam proposal to tag people with HIV/AIDS

The Coming Anarchy has been hosting a series on security issues in Oceania. Bloggers include Opinio Juris, The Strategist (focusing on Melanesia) and Phil at Pacific Empire. It’s good to see some more coverage of issues in the South Pacific (albeit negative ones) in cyberspace.

The Commission of Inquiry into the 2006 April Civil Unrest in Honiara released its first interim report to the public this morning (see report here…I wish they’d PDF it or something…)

The Commission is chaired by Brian Brunton (a former PNG National Court judge). The other members of the Commission are Noel Levi (PNG), Waeta Ben Tabusasi (Solomon Islands) and Charles Levo (Solomon Islands).

I haven’t yet read the entire report, but the points made in the Executive Summary include the following:
there is evidence of a degree of consensus amongst political groups present in Honiara, that in the event of a prime minister being elected by Parliament who was not of their choice, or liking, they would force a regime change; despite this, senior officers controlling Solomon Islands security had (a) inadequately assessed the risks of civil unrest associated with the election of a prime minister;(b) no detailed plan to deal with potential unrest;(c) insufficient numbers of police, insufficient trained riot-control capability and insufficient equipment to deal with the risks of civil unrest associated with the election of a prime minister.

Of considerable interest is this point:

The Commission is of the opinion that the assertions by some witnesses that the outbreak of violence at Parliament House was (a) spontaneous, (b) a reaction to pent-up anger, (c) driven by the need to get rid of corruption, (d) driven by the need to break Chinese influence on political groups, or (e) a reaction to the Participating Police Force firing either flash-grenades or tear gas are, in part, contrived, do not ring true, and conflict with other evidence (such as footage, the throwing of stones, and statements of other witnesses).

Hmmm. I’ll read the report before I comment on that one!!

A reminder that we should think beyond cliches - kids are the leaders of tomorrow, but they might also be the leaders of today; and while children are frequently described as amongst the most vulnerable, this is a reminder that we shouldn’t overlook their capacities and forms of resilience either.

Child wedding ’stopped by pupils’ (from BBC)

Classmates of a 13-year-old Bangladeshi school girl due to enter a forced marriage have united to stop the ceremony going ahead, police say.

Around 50 pupils in the town of Satkhira took to the streets to demand that Habiba Sultana’s wedding be called off, they say.

Pupils even submitted a petition to police urging them to take action.

Police summoned Habiba’s father and ordered him to stop the girl’s marriage, which they said was illegal.

Her father was told to sign a bond in which he promised not marry off his daughter while she is still a child, the Bangladesh Daily Star reported.

It said that the wedding was to have taken place in the south-western town of Satkhira on Friday.

Police say that Habiba, a student of Abdul Karim Girls’ High School, did not agree when her poverty-stricken father arranged for her to marry a 23-year-old neighbour.

Police say that she was too frightened to protest.

When she told her friends about the impending wedding, they rallied round and urged her not to go ahead.

Parents of her friends contacted Habiba’s father and tried to stop him from going ahead with the wedding.

Initially he ignored their protests, but changed his mind after the police were alerted and small protests were held outside the school.

Correspondents say that the stand of the schoolgirls has created a stir in the town.

Like many other parts of the country - young people in Satkhira are deferential to their parents and seldom question their commands.

During the last few weeks, the Fiji military interim administration has banned several NGO workers and human rights activists from leaving Fiji in the course of their normal duties as representatives of their organisations and networks.

The latest victim of these travel bans is the Coordinator of the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre (FWCC) Shamima Ali (press release here).

The FWCC was recently appointed the deputy chair of the advisory committee to the Pacific Prevention of Domestic Violence Program, which is an initiative between NZAid and the Pacific Islands Chiefs of Police (PICP).

Details of this story can be found in the FWCC’s June newsletter.

The FWCC is regarded as one of the most successful AusAID-Pacific NGO partnerships. Shamima Ali is a remarkable woman, being the founding member of the Fiji NGO Coalition on Human Rights and is the first Pacific Islander appointed by the United Nations as a member of the Expert Group on the Rights of the Girl-Child. Ms Ali was a Pacific representative on the Commonwealth Foundation Civil Society Advisory Council , and was appointed a member of the Commonwealth Observer Group for the Nigerian Elections (April 2003) and appointed Fiji Human Rights Commissioner (February 2004) with a reappointed in February 2006.

The Director of the Fiji Human Rights Commission (an independent statutory authority), Shaista Shameem, has said that she has advised the interim government to lift the travel bans (audio comments here).

The NSW government has refused to scrap a controversial songbook with a song apologising to Aborigines, despite complaints it’s political propaganda. Hamish East, the father of a pupil at Kiama Public School, on the state’s south coast, approached the school principal after learning his son Brian was being taught the Sorry Song by West Australian composer Kerry Fletcher. Mr East told News Ltd he was not opposed to reconciliation but the sorry issue was “emotive” and political, and should not be forced down the throat of a child. He is reported as saying that the song is a “political stunt” which “confused” his son.

The only lyrics I can find on the web are the following:

If we can say sorry to the people from this land,
Sing, sing loud,
Break through the silence,
sing across this land.

They Cry, they cry,
Their children were stolen,
They still wonder why.

Break through the silence
Sing sorry across this land
We cry, we cry, their children were stolen.

Mmm. I would have thought the history of that song was fairly undisputed, and was not overly politicised. Kids were taken from their parents, we still feel the ramifications of that today, and we should be sorry for that part of our history.

Kevin Rudd has disagreed with the NSW government. He’s indicated that he sees the song as inappropriate for schools, saying: “I think we’re starting to look at too much political correctness on those sorts of questions. We’ve got to watch out for political correctness going mad.”

“Political correctness gone mad.” That phrase always sets off alarm bells for me!

Mr Rudd says that children should be educated about the facts of Australia’s history, including respecting indigenous culture, but left to make up their own minds about what’s right and wrong.

With all due respect to Mr Rudd, I reckon that irrespective of whether Aussie kids are taught that indigenous kids were “stolen” or “taken”, they’re going to find that pretty…uh, emotive. When I was in primary school I was absolutely terrified that my parents would get divorced, because it felt like everyone else’s parents would. I suspect that a lot of kids are going to find the idea that children were “taken” from their parents pretty distressing…even confusing.

I’m far from convinced that the Sorry Song is any more “emotive” or biased than the lyrics of our national anthem: . Perhaps we should cease teaching that to kids, in case it denies them the ability to make up their own minds about history.

When gallant Cook from Albion sail’d,
To trace wide oceans o’er,
True British courage bore him on,
Till he landed on our shore.
Then here he raised Old England’s flag,
The standard of the brave;
With all her faults we love her still,
“Brittannia rules the wave!”
In joyful strains then let us sing
“Advance Australia fair!”

Or how about the final verse:

Shou’d foreign foe e’er sight our coast,
Or dare a foot to land,
We’ll rouse to arms like sires of yore
To guard our native strand;
Brittannia then shall surely know,
Beyond wide ocean’s roll,
Her sons in fair Australia’s land
Still keep a British soul.
In joyful strains the let us sing
“Advance Australia fair!”

I’m not sure that singing about Aussies having a “British soul” and England ruling the waves is allowing kids much scope to “make up their own minds” about our history.

While on the surface this appears to be a relatively insignificant spat over the appropriateness of singing a song in a primary school, at a deeper level it reveals the extent to which Australian history continues to be whitewashed (and I use that term deliberately). The vulnerability and capacity of individuals and communities is rooted in their histories. History shapes our social structures, our sense of self, our emotional resilience.

I don’t expect 8 year olds to fully understand this part of Australian history - it’s hard for me, a young adult, to get my head around it! I don’t believe that 8 year olds of Anglo descent should be plagued by guilt for what their grandparents or great-parents did. However the reality is that many 8 year olds of indigenous descent are painfully aware of this history. They might know that their father has only just met some of his siblings, or they might know that their grandmother never knew her mother because she was taken from her family and forced to work, very hard, for white people in a place very far away from her own community. Or they might know that their father doesn’t know where he comes from, and that he saw very bad things in the mission he grew up on. Where do these kids fit into our education system? For how long will we continue to ignore their voices, their everyday experiences? For how long will their experiences be ignored because their stories are “too difficult” for other 8 year olds?

I’m currently reading the OECD Development Centre’s report on Land, Violent Conflict and Development. The report reviews what has been learnt so far about the link between land and conflict (Sections II and III), and the scope for land policy to prevent violent conflict (Section IV). It also looks at what is not known, as well as ways to learn more. It concludes with making some preliminary policy-relevant recommendations on how donors may support the use of land policy to secure peace in developing countries.

The report is not new - publication date is 2004 - but it makes some observations that don’t appear to have been heeded. For example, the report notes that donors’ conflict-prevention programmes aiming to sustain peace in immediate post-conflict settings tend to neglect land issues. Similarly, land policy projects often neglect the conflict dimension. It suggests that donors include “Political Impact Assessment” into project cycles in order to better understand local dynamics, monitor potential land-incited conflict, and consider the impact of projects on local politics and land issues.

An observation that I found worrying, but in some respects reassuring because of my own frustration with the limited interaction between “research” and “practice” (also known as “academics” and “NGOs”) was the observation that:

Although the scope of each category of development programme (e.g. rural development, education, or enterprise development) is broadening continuously to accommodate new preoccupations, those responsible for designing and implementing them, within academia or donor agencies, do not systematically exchange their views and experience.

A section that really struck me was that entitled “Decentralisation is not a Panacea” (p. 33):

Although assumed to be more transparent and closer to “ground-level realities” than national politics, local politics often exhibit no such features when looked at in detail — especially in contexts marked by the embedded domination of large landowners. In Africa, British colonial rule — often referred to as “indirect rule” — greatly weighted the balance of forces at the level of villages in favour of chiefs. This situation has not been significantly altered after decolonisation, and incited Mamdani (1996) to describe it as “decentralised despotism”. Thus, even when agrarian structures appear to be organised along “customary” rules, they do not necessarily foster “harmony” between community members. Chauveau (199 thus argues that:

“As an element of broader social relations, and a result from history and power relations, customary tenure rules and practice do not constitute an endogenous, closed and harmonious system[…]. The process by which rights are acquired and protected is hence deeply political”.

He argues that West African small holder agriculture is subject to a variety of external and internal pressures, to which different customary systems react differently. Yet, a common feature seems to be that local dynamics tend to reinforce the most powerful members of the community (usually middle aged land owning men). When economic opportunities are rising, a process of differentiation is observed, which favours those who are able to invest in land productivit (Woodhouse 2003); when opportunities are becoming scarcer, the pressure on livelihoods puts at odds customary and other claims to land, and results either in the exclusion of the weaker or in violent conflict. As Woodhouse (ibid.) puts it:

“When competition for land intensifies, the inclusive flexibility offered by customary rights can quickly become an uncharted terrain on which the least powerful are vulnerable to exclusion as a result of the manipulation of ambiguity by the more powerful”.

Therefore, assuming “decentralised” ownership of projects to be more legitimate or efficient “by essence” may be misleading. For all their shortcomings, central states have an essential role to play in promoting peace and development in rural areas, including through a process of decentralisation. First, they can balance the influence of local authorities viz. the weaker groups (often the young, women, and strangers). Second, they can ensure induced patterns of change are consistent with overall goals of economic growth and environmental sustainability.

A good reminder that we should always interrogate our assumptions, biases and ideological leanings!! I’ve often been frustrated by the criticism levelled by some NGOs, practitioners and activists towards other NGOs or donor agencies that focus on reform of governance, law and justice sectors. While the shift towards grassroots development is a good one, we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater - law reform is often a necessary part of development, and it is inevitably going to be more top-down than some other forms of development. Unfortunately too many NGOs neglect issues of law and governance (because these issues are seen as “top down” development), and focus instead on things like microcredit (which is seen as “grassroots” development), when law and governance systems are the very things that shape people’s access to resources.