Israel’s seizure of the Gaza-bound flotilla: applicable laws and legality

 June 4th, 2010

 by Craig Scott

Editorial Introduction:

On June 4, 2010, CBC News created a FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) page on its cbcnews.ca website on the recent high seas intervention by Israel against ships bound for Gaza with humanitarian cargo: see “Flotilla raid: FAQs on the ships trying to reach Gaza.”  Osgoode Professor (and TheCourt.ca Editor-in-Chief) Craig Scott was asked to supply summary answers for the FAQ to two questions on the legal dimensions of the incident.  What follows are more fulsome answers to each of the two questions.

CBC has linked from the shorter answers on the cbcnews.ca site to the present page, for those CBC readers who wish to delve a bit deeper.  In turn, in an exercise of Editor-in-Chief executive discretion, this page has been created as a posting on TheCourt.ca as a somewhat symbolic gesture: in the absence of a functioning international court system that would help answer the legal issues at stake in this case, the court of juridical opinion will likely be the best we will do.  To that end, it is hoped that readers of TheCourt.ca will welcome this posting on a matter outside the usual scope of postings on TheCourt.ca.

Links to other online legal views are provided at the end of this

***

First question: What laws apply in the military seizure of a vessel in international waters?

At the most general, the applicable law is ‘public international law’ (PIL), which is the term for the law that primarily deals with interstate relations.  Within PIL, the issue of military seizure of a vessel in international waters lies at the interface of two fields of PIL, the ‘law of the sea’ and the ‘law of armed conflict.’   In both areas, both treaties (e.g. the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War) and unwritten ‘customary international law’ (or, custom) may be relevant to the rules that apply to a specific incident or dispute.  Sometimes, a legal instrument will not in and of itself apply to all states, but will form the basis for states to consider custom has arisen; this is the case, for example, with respect to the classical law of naval blockades as set out in a document called the London Declaration of 1909.

 

Within the law relating to armed conflict, there is a standard distinction between how a state or other actors may conduct themselves once an armed conflict has started and the rules governing whether armed force can be used by a state that either initiates an armed conflict or responds to another actor’s initiation of such a conflict.  The former sub-field generally bears one of two labels, both meaning the same thing, namely, the ‘laws of war’ or ‘international humanitarian law;’ within that body of law, there is an even more specific body of law known as the law of naval blockade.  The latter sub-field (on initiation of conflict or response to such initiation) is usually be referred to as the ‘law on the use of force’, within which there is also a more specific body of law known as the ‘law of self-defence.’   Latin terms inherited form previous eras of PIL speak also of the distinction between jus in bello (roughly, the law in war) as distinguished from jus ad bellum (the law of going to war).  Israel’s justifications appear to intermingle both the jus in bello law of naval blockades and the jus ad bellum law of self-defence.

In contemporary PIL, two other bodies of law are relevant beyond the law of the sea and the law of armed conflict.  One is the law of the United Nations Charter, specifically the rules of the Charter that permit the UN Security Council to make law that is binding on all states as long as the matter falls within the broad subject matter of international peace and security; as a general matter, UN Security Council law can either modify or override rules that would otherwise be applicable.  The other area of law is what is known as ‘international human rights law’ (including a sub-set of principles around the right to self-determination), an ever-growing body of law that is now widely accepted as not only applying during armed conflicts (not only in peacetime) but as sometimes going beyond or sometimes interpretively influencing the ‘international humanitarian law’ (recall: the rules of conduct once an armed conflict is underway).

As well, apart from treaties and custom, PIL also recognizes a category called ‘general principles of law’, which arguably is relevant by helping provide content for requirements of proportionality and necessity within the law that deals with excessive use of force whether as jus in bello or jus ad bellum.

Finally, national law will also come into play in a variety of ways.  For example, any jurisdiction Israel asserts over foreign ships on the high seas needs to be authorized by Israeli law itself.  For another example, it is Turkish national law that conferred nationality on some or all of the ships in the flotilla, with this conferral then having implications for Turkey’s rights as a state under PIL with respect to vessels flying its flag.

Question 2: Was the May 31 seizure legal?

As with many areas of law, especially public international law, there can be reasonable differences of views both on exactly what legal rules apply and, once that is determined, whether the facts reveal a violation of one or more rules.  What follows is the author’s assessment of what appears to the author to be the most sustainable view, based on a combination of independent legal analysis and the dominant understanding of the applicable law within the international legal community.  The bottom-line is that the boarding and seizure do not appear to have been legal while more facts are needed in order to know whether specific acts of force by Israeli commandos were also illegal.

The Law of the Sea:

Both treaty and customary international law preclude any state from boarding and arresting – far less, attacking – a ship that has another state’s nationality on the high seas (which are those international waters beyond 12 nautical miles from any state’s coast).  There are a very few limited exceptions, such as the right of any state to accost, board, arrest and take to port a pirate ship or a slave-trading ship.  No exceptions are relevant here in the case of the Gaza-flotilla seizure.

It may be noted that a few states, notably the US, have over the years tried to assert some undefined right to seize ships on the high seas in order to arrest suspected terrorists.  Most states do not accept such an exception exists. In any case, even if such an exception exists, there is no plausible case that the persons on board the flotilla ships were, in law, terrorists.

Israel’s action thus violated the law of the sea unless it can successfully plead an exception under the laws of armed conflict.

The Laws of War / International Humanitarian Law:

Most would accept that an international armed conflict continues between Israel and Gaza (and/or the Hamas authorities in Gaza), notwithstanding Israel no longer physically occupying the Gaza strip.  More specifically, Israel claims to be enforcing a naval blockade which is a method of warfare that assumes an ongoing armed conflict.

Various treaty and, likely, customary rules do permit naval blockades by one belligerent (here, Israel) as a method to prevent neutral ships (here, Turkish) from supplying war-related material to another belligerent (here, Gaza/Hamas) and, at least according to traditional law on naval blockades, as a method of more general economic coercion.  By the classical rules, the blockade must be publicly announced and the line past which a blockade will be enforced must be precise and clear; further, for various reasons, the classical rules also require the blockade actually be effective (i.e. not just pronounced but enforced); finally, it must be applied impartially, that is, to all neutrals’ ships as opposed only to the ships of some states. However, even under traditional laws of war (untouched by contemporary international human rights law), a “principle of humanity” applies to naval blockades such that supplies intended as humanitarian aid for the populace cannot be prevented from reaching the other belligerent if one of two conditions are met: : if the blockade has (or comes to have) the purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or if the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.  International human rights law almost certainly deepens the principle of humanity, for example, by influencing how to interpret the notions of “objects essential for survival” or “damage to the civilian population” that is “excessive.”

Assuming the existence of an international armed conflict here, Israel does have the presumptive power to establish a blockade that operates in conformity with the law.  However, should it turn out that the blockade is, for one or more reasons, unlawful, then the general principle would be that there can be no right to enforce an unlawful blockade – at least as long as the unlawfulness is of the sort that would be termed fundamental or a manifest breach of the law.

Notwithstanding that the law allows a naval blockade, the dominant legal view would seem to be that the blockade as a whole had become illegal well before the Gaza flotilla incident – and may indeed have been illegal virtually from the outset, three years ago, depending on its intent.  This illegality stems from reasons related to both the principle of humanity within the laws of war and that principle’s interaction with contemporary international human rights law such as with respect to the rights to food, shelter, health, and, more generally security of the person.

Justice Richard Goldstone and his colleagues on a commission of inquiry established by the UN Human Rights Council after the 2008-09 land conflict between Israel and Gaza take the view that both in intent and in effect the Israeli blockade – land and sea, combined – is actually operating as a form of collective punishment or reprisal against the population at large.  This is due to a combination of factors, including: evidence as to intent of Israel decision makers, evidence that quantities of humanitarian supplies that Israel permits into Gaza are grossly inadequate to the imperative of humanitarian relief, and evidence that many materials that should be permitted to enter (e.g. concrete) are in fact barred.

Further, UN Security Council Resolution 1860 of January 8, 2009 (during Israel’s incursion into Gaza in response to rocket fire from Gaza) contains provisions that come close to calling for the blockade to be lifted or at the very least implemented in a way that meets humanitarian obligations.  In Resolution 1860, the Security Council (which, it must be noted, includes Israel’s stalwart ally, the US) “[c]alls for the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment”, “[w]elcomes the initiatives aimed at creating and opening humanitarian corridors and other mechanisms for the sustained delivery of humanitarian aid”, and “[c]alls on Member States to support international efforts to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation in Gaza.”  The reader should bear in mind that the failure of the Council to specifically declare the blockade illegal or to call for it to be lifted has to be read against the need to achieve the assent of the US for any resolution to be adopted.  A broader analysis of the opinion of member states of the UN could well reveal that the large majority do take the view, with Justice Goldstone, that the blockade is illegal.

It is also worth noting that, after the seizure, the Security Council agreed on June 1 on what is known as a Presidential Statement (a step below a formal resolution).  The President stated on behalf of the entire Council that “it reiterates its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and stresses the need for sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza as well as unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza.”  It also called on Israel to permit all the ships’ goods to proceed to Gaza, although it did not say that this must occur by way of allowing the ships themselves to.  Again, the United States’ views had to be taken into account in crafting this Security Council statement.

There is also a more technical but still fundamental reason why the blockade has been illegal in its operation, a reason that also shows why the specific exercise of the blockade in the specific case of the Gaza flotilla was illegal (even if one refuses to accept the view that the blockade is illegal by virtue of excessive harm to the populace). Where a blockade is lawful, a blockading state still has the right to require a neutral ship to allow itself to be inspected in order to make sure that the cargo is indeed humanitarian and does not also include, for example, armaments.  But, significantly, traditional laws of war long ago evolved to the point of recognizing the obligation of the blockading state to inspect cargo under the supervision of a neutral party, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, in order to make sure humanitarian supplies are not seized or diverted from their intended destination.

Especially when overlain with evidence that Israel’s categories of humanitarian relief supplies are narrower than warranted and also in light of allegations that Israel has at times failed to send on supplies by land that it has said it would send after inspection, the failure of Israel to create a system of third party supervision arguably vitiates the entire blockade scheme.  The specific failure to involve third party inspectors in the case of the Gaza flotilla, combined with there being no transparency as to what supplies will or will not eventually make their way to Gaza (because the boats are not permitted to continue to port in Gaza and have been seized), means that the boarding and seizure in this case was also an illegal implementation of the law of blockade.

The Law of Self-Defence

Israel often does not distinguish whether it is employing the blockade as a method within the laws of war in the context of an ongoing conflict or whether it views the blockade and the right to board and seize ships as part of the law of self-defence in response to threats of force (with, on this view, there being no need to find an underlying armed conflict to be underway).  There are legal complexities involved in the melding of these two areas of law, but the better view is that the matter needs to be looked at as a matter of the methods of warfare within an ongoing armed conflict and not as the right to use force outside of a prior armed conflict. In any case, there is almost no support amongst states or scholars outside the US or Israel for viewing facts such as these as being sufficient to generate a right of self-defence.  Israel’s action would fall into the extreme end of the spectrum of the kind of preventative use of force that international law does not accept.  International law instead requires that any threat be both clear and imminent before force can be used to take anticipatory action.

Degree of Force in Implementation of the Blockade

Principles of necessity and proportionality are relevant to the actual conduct of the operation to interdict the Gaza flotilla, whether one applies these principles as rules within the laws of war dealing with taking military measures against civilian actors, as constraints within the law of self-defence, or as principles that both international human rights law and general principles of law bring to bear on the situation.

On this point, more clarity as to the facts and reflection, as those facts clarify, are still needed.  However, a framing question must surely be: does boarding civilian ships i(that have announced the intention of delivering humanitarian aid) in darkness, by use of helicopter-delivered commandos, and so far away from the Gaza coast (and, it seems, four times as far out to sea as the normal blockade line of 20 miles from Gaza) contravene principles of necessity and proportionality that permeate contemporary international law?  If the answer to this question is negative, then the method of seizure also violates international law, whether or not the blockade as whole or the blockade in its general operation is legal.

A word of caution is required here. None of this denies that the individual Israeli soldiers had the right to defend themselves if, as appears from some video, they were met by what seems a vicious use of weapons, such as metal bars, shown by Israeli video. The soldiers’ specific use of force may turn out to have been excessive, but no one has all the facts at hand to know this yet. However, we should not let the issue of the justification of the lethal force during shipboard operations obscure the prior question of whether Israel’s decision makers lawfully placed its own soldiers in this situation in the first place.

Nor does any of this go to whether those on board may also have had a right to personal defence or defence of the ship, depending on their perceptions of their own physical danger and taking into account the background of believed illegality of the blockade. As with the lethal use of guns by Israeli soldiers, all the facts will need to be clarified to know whether the resistors themselves used excessive force (as, I must say again, Israeli video certainly suggests was the case, in at least some situations where we see a group  clubbing one or more downed soldiers).

***

For those interested in other online contributions on the legality questions with respect to the Gaza-flotilla events, you may want also to read “Israel’s naval blockade pitches and rolls with the Law of the Sea” by Ed Morgan (Professor of Law, University of Toronto), “They shouldn’t have been there: Israel’s soldiers may have acted in self-defence, but boarding a flotilla of aid ships on the high seas violated international law“, by Michael Byers (Canada Research Chair, University of British Columbia), “Gaza fleet raid raises questions over legality of Israel’s blockade” by Douglas Guilfoyle (Lecturer in Law, University College, University of London), and “Legal Issues Raised by Israel’s Blockade of Gaza” by Dapo Akande (University Lecturer in Public International Law, University of Oxford) including comments by Bruce Broomhall (Professor of Law, Université du Québec à Montréal).

Relief Well Was Used to Halt Australian Spill

By KEITH BRADSHER

===========================================

PTTEP

The Montara Spill Fire burned on a partially collapsed Montara wellhead in the Timor Sea in November 2009, just after a relief well halted an oil leak in the sea that had lasted for more than 10 weeks.

Multimedia

Interactive Map

Tracking the Oil Spill

Related

• BP Moves to Fix a Leak as Obama Warns of Damage (May 3, 2010)

• This Land: Learning to Love the Sea, Then Torn From It (May 3, 2010)

• Safety Fears Halt Fishing in Areas Affected by Spill (May 3, 2010)

Enlarge This Image

U.S. Coast Guard

The Gulf of Mexico Spill Response crews battled a fire on the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico last month. The rig sank April 22. Eleven workers died and three were critically injured.

The New York Times

The gulf spill site, top, and the 2009 Timor Sea spill site.

=========================================

HONG KONG — While BP tries various short-term efforts to plug a leaking oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, the company is preparing to drill a relief well as a backup plan. BP hopes to drill that well diagonally to intersect the original one below the seabed and then flood it with mud and concrete to stop the uncontrolled flow.

Although the idea sounds simple, the experience with a similar spill last year near Australia shows just how difficult it can be to execute the maneuver.

“It’s like finding a needle in a haystack,” said Rachel Siewert, an Australian senator who is a member of the country’s opposition Greens Party and is critical of the oil industry.

The Australian accident, known as the Montara spill, began Aug. 21 with a blowout of high-pressure oil similar to the one in the gulf. With the well spewing 17,000 to 85,000 gallons per day, precious weeks passed before the relief wells were started. When efforts got under way, the first four attempts — drilled on Oct. 6, 13, 17 and 24 — missed the original well.

A fifth attempt finally intersected the original on Nov. 1, and about 3,400 barrels of heavy mud were pumped through the relief well into the base of the original well. The spewing oil finally stopped Nov. 3 — more than 10 weeks after the original explosion.

BP intends to drill a similar relief well close to the site where the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig blew up and sank in the gulf nearly two weeks ago. The company says the well could take months to complete. In the meantime, the well continues to leak 210,000 gallons of oil a day, according to the latest official estimates.

The Montara accident resembled the Gulf of Mexico accident in that both started with problems in the well itself, and it proved very hard to stop without resorting to further underground drilling, said Elmer P. Danenberger III, who was the top American regulator of offshore oil drilling until his retirement on Jan. 2.

“There are clearly some similarities,” Mr. Danenberger said.

Drilling the relief well proved tricky in the Montara spill, which was located in Australian waters in the Timor Sea, between northwest Australia and Indonesia.

The drilling team was trying to hit a well casing less than 10 inches in diameter at a depth 1.6 miles below the seabed, according to testimony this spring before an Australian government commission of inquiry.

The BP well has an even skinnier casing, reportedly measuring seven inches in diameter.

The companies involved in the Australian and American accidents are mostly different. In the Gulf of Mexico, BP, based in London, leased the drilling platform from Transocean, a Swiss company.

In the Timor case, it was PTT Exploration and Production, a Thai company, which had leased the West Atlas drilling rig and its crew from Atlas Drilling, an affiliate of Seadrill Management, a Norwegian company.

PTT’s and Seadrill’s offices were closed for the weekend and their officials could not be reached for comment. In documents submitted to the commission of inquiry, PTT acknowledged that it should have used more concrete for a temporary plug injected into the well when drilling was briefly halted before the blowout, but maintained that the basic design of the plug conformed to industry standards.

Atlas and PTT have disagreed in their submissions to the commission over whether PTT employees made an error in unscrewing a pressure-containing cap on top of the well shortly before the blowout.

Halliburton, a major oil services company based in Houston, was involved in the concrete work as a contractor in both the Montara and Gulf of Mexico spills.

A Halliburton employee, David A. Doeg, testified to the Australian commission that he made the problem worse at the Montara well by repumping concrete during an incorrectly handled procedure before the blowout. But Mr. Doeg testified that he was taking direction from PTT managers.

Halliburton’s role in the Gulf of Mexico disaster has also come under scrutiny. In a statement Friday, the company confirmed that it conducted concrete operations on the rig shortly before the accident but said it was “premature and irresponsible to speculate” on the cause. Halliburton said it was cooperating with investigations into the spill.

The Montara spill differed from the gulf spill in some ways that made it easier to stop, and in other ways that made it harder to stop. To begin with, the Montara drilling platform was operating in water that was 250 feet deep, while the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig leased by BP was on a seabed 5,000 feet deep.

But the seabed geology around the base of Deepwater Horizon has been well mapped, which would help any effort to drill a relief well there, Mr. Danenberger said. The Montara spill occurred during initial exploration of a seabed that is less well known.

BP is also pursuing other options, including continuing its efforts trying to activate a malfunctioning, 40-foot-tall blowout preventer on the ocean floor and trying to cover the undersea leak with a dome that would capture the oil so that it could be piped safely to the surface.

The Montara oil well had no blowout preventer on the sea floor.

The Montara oil spill last year was Australia’s third worst, after tanker spills in 1975 and 1991, and its worst from offshore oil production.

The Australian accident had a smaller environmental impact than the gulf spill is likely to have. In the Montara case, the oil spilled into the ocean far from land. Small quantities reportedly washed up in Indonesia, but most of it dispersed on the open ocean after forming a thin sheen covering up to 10,000 square miles.

The commission of inquiry into the Montara spill was originally scheduled to issue its report by Friday, but has delayed it to analyze the complex causes and effects of the spill. The Australian government is separately drafting legislation for tighter oversight of the offshore drilling industry.

Ms. Siewert said in a telephone interview this weekend that her party opposed any immediate move to change the rules for the industry. The Green Party believes that when the results of the commission’s inquiry are released, they should provide support for even tougher regulations than anything proposed so far, she said.

The Montara and Gulf of Mexico spills are not the only ones involving offshore drilling platforms. The Ixtoc oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico suffered a blowout in 1979 and leaked oil off the Mexican state of Campeche; some of the oil reached the Texas coast as well.

 

Hailing from Durban, South Africa, Nathi Maphumulo aka Blackcoffee has been grinding a fine blend of deep bassline-driven house beats since the mid ninetees. Inspiration hit a peak at the RBMA in Cape Town in 2003, where he crossed creative paths with South African legend Hugh Masekela. The great man added soulful notes to Blackcoffee's debut CD, which then bagged a trophy for Best Dance Album at the 2006 South African Music Awards. Since then he's been serving fixes on top kwaito outlet Kalawa Jazzmee and Kronologic as well as on leading European house music labels like Franck Roger's Real Tone from Paris or GOGO from Germany. Once heads get a shot of Blackcoffee, they always crave more. [Red Bull Music Academy Radio]

KWAITO HOUSE : BLACK COFFEE & DJ CLEO

June 3, 2010 - Posted by dj umb

 

 

Ok, GENERATION BASS are offocially in South Africa, I wrote this advance post before I left the UK.

Here’s some XCELLENT South African/Kwaito House vids that I liberated from Kwaito.co.uk.

A kwaito classic in:

The New Age of Kwaito:

BLACK COFFEE VIDEOS:

Share this:

 

HUGH MASEKELA - Don't Go Lose It Baby

 

 

The Motherhood Muse WRITING CONTEST

Contents

I.                   Writing Guidelines

II.                Prizes

III.             Deadlines

IV.             Submission Guidelines

V.                Terms & Conditions

I. Writing Guidelines

1. There are two categories that you may choose from: Fiction Short Story and Non-Fiction Literary Essay.

2. The story and characters of the fiction short story must be fiction.

3. Entry must be between 500 – 1,200 words. (The title is not included in the word count.)

4. Use Times New Roman (size 12 font) or Arial (size 11 font), double-space in the email.

5. Word count should be noted at the end of the entry with your personal information.

6. Open prompt for both categories. Any genre is accepted.

7. Each entry will be evaluated for key components of literature (voice, figurative language, original approach to the story or essay, engaging character development, strength of opening and ending, mechanics and structure).

II. Prizes

1. Four total winners will be chosen.

2. First Place for Fiction Short Story and Non-Fiction Literary Essay (each winner will receive): $100 + publication in the e-Zine + interview on the blog

3. Second Place for Fiction Short Story and Non-Fiction Literary Essay (each winner will receive): $50 + publication in the e-Zine + interview on the blog

III. Deadlines

1. SPRING Contest – Deadline is May 1, 2010 (Midnight PST)

2. FALL Contest – Deadline is November 1, 2010 (Midnight PST)

IV. Submission Guidelines

STEP 1: Complete the ENTRY FORM with your name, email address, title of entry, and in comments if your PayPal name/email is different.

STEP 2: Make your payment of $10 by PayPal.

STEP 3: Email your submission to contest@themotherhoodmuse.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

·         DO NOT submit your entry as an attachment. Copy it into the body of the email.

·         In the subject of your email write “fiction” or “non-fiction” for the type of entry.

·         Use the following order for your email entry:

o   Title

o   Entry

o   Your FIRST and LAST name

o   Address

o   Phone number

o   Email address

o   PayPal Transaction ID #

o   WORD COUNT

V. Terms & Conditions

1. The Motherhood Muse Writing Contest is open to all writers.

2. We do not accept published works, works accepted for publication or simultaneous submissions.

3. Each entry must be original, unpublished, and written by the submitting writer.

4. More than one entry per writer is accepted (Repeat Submission Guidelines for each entry).

5. All entries must be designated as either Fiction Short Story or Non-Fiction Literary Essay.

6. The Motherhood Muse will not be responsible for material misdirected or submitted after the contest deadlines.

7. The Motherhood Muse will not be held responsible for submissions that are a breach of copyright.

8. If for any reason The Motherhood Muse Writing Contest does not reach the expected response, the total prize money may be adjusted accordingly.

9. The entry fee is a fee charged for viewing, processing, and judging submission materials.

10. The Motherhood Muse retains first electronic rights with the right to archive indefinitely for the four winning entries, but the winners retain first print rights and any other rights such as anthology rights.

11. In the case you wish to republish your winning entry, we ask for credit to be given to The Motherhood Muse in the credit line of the reprint.

12. The content of each entry should not be overtly religious, political, sexual or violent in nature.

13. The Motherhood Muse will at no time without your express permission sell or share your information with anyone.

14. Entries received after the deadline will be rejected.

15. Entries that are under or over the word count will be rejected. (This DOES NOT include the title and personal information at the end of the entry email.)

16. Entries that are not accompanied with the $10 entry fee (paid via Pay Pal) will be rejected.

17. Entries that are sent as attachments will be rejected.

18. The Motherhood Muse will not disclose Personal Information (including full name) received from Contest entrants without their express permission.

19. The Motherhood Muse will use your Personal Information to notify you if you have won and to ask you about your submitted story. The Motherhood Muse may use your Personal Information to notify you about other events and similar contests The Motherhood Muse holds in the future.

20.  By submitting an entry to The Motherhood Muse Writing Contest, you agree to be bound by these Terms & Conditions.

100 Words or Fewer Writing Contest

Contest Number Five

March 18, 2010—July 18, 2010

Fiction

FICTION CONTESTS

Here are the two fiction contests for Contest Five—“A” and “B” below.

A. Original: 100 words or fewer, on any subject whatsoever (excluding lewd).

B. New Contest: Stories will revolve around either (a) “The Old Man” or (b) “Home.”

The amount we have for prizes each time is $800.00. Because prizes decrease as we add contests, we have decided to return from the three contests offered last time to two. Looking below, you will find the math. The current distribution may lure more entrants into the fun!

Prizes

1. Original

   First Prize--$500. Second Prize--$100.

2. New

   Subjects are “The Old Man” and “Home.” From the pool of these stories, one story will receive a First Prize of $150. One story will receive a Second Prize of $50.

(Prizes add up to $800.00)

Selection of the four winning stories will be made by our Final Judge, Erica Bauermeister.

We are anxious to see results of both A and B! NOTE: All contests require the 100 words limitation. All stories must meet requirements set forth in Official Guidelines. All contests are open for multiple entries by anyone.

On the Stories We Tell About Africa

June 3, 2010 · 2 Comments

 

‘… The problem isn’t really the stories that are being told or which stories are being told. The problem really is the terms of humanity that we’re willing to bring to complicate every story.’

A recent comment from reader Justin Kraus reminds me that I’ve been meaning to post this brilliant talk from Chris Abani. Justin’s comment probably deserves a longer post (which would first dispense with the positive/negative binary), but Abani’s talk gets at just about everything I think about as I encounter “Africa” every day, and then attempt to write about those encounters.

 It’s a couple of years old so you may already have run across it but it doesn’t hurt to hear it again. It’s worth your 19:34.

On another note, Chimamada Ngozi Adichie, another personal favorite (Herman posted her equally important talk on the danger of a single story last year), has been chosen as one of The New Yorker’s “20 Under 40” list of fiction writers worth watching, the first such list in more than a decade. I like this (even though we don’t much care for lists around here).

– Sonja Uwimana

Avatar’s Pandora: A modern day battle in the Congo

by Kambale Musavuli

“Avatar”: The battle of Pandora is taking place right now in the Congo! – Photo: OfficialAvatarMovie © All rights reserved

“Avatar,” the highest-grossing film of all time, may be more real and current than the average person knows. The battle of Pandora is taking place right now in the Congo!

Since 1996 a war has been raging in the Congo to get access to resources vital for modern technology and global investors. Nearly 6 million Congolese have lost their lives, millions more have been displaced, hundreds of thousands of women have been systematically raped as a strategy of war, mass scale logging is taking place at an alarming rate in the second largest rainforest in the world and an $80 billion plan is being pursued by the World Energy Council to dam the river ostensibly to provide electricity to Europe while the people of the Congo are still in the dark.

All the while, there is a deafening silence within the international community about the root causes of this 14-year-old war waged in the heart of Africa.

Ann Hornaday, in her Dec. 18, 2009, article in the Washington Post delves into “Avatar”’s historical connection with the Congo as she shows how Joseph Conrad’s Marlow is the “Avatar” corollary of James Cameron’s Jake Sully. In Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness,” we see the dehumanizing description of Congo natives as “mostly black and naked, [moving] about like ants” and “black shapes” remarkably similar to Cameron’s “Avatar” label of “flea-bitten savages” and “blue monkeys.”

Using computer animation and 3-D technology, Cameron takes us into a virtual world where the characters maintain their humanness throughout this action-packed film. The three dimensional experience of “Avatar” places the audience inside the plot. They witness in real time the resource exploitation of indigenous land at the expense of local populations in the name of profit for corporations and investors.

Sunk into the special effects, ordinary people fail to realize how they are also complicit in destruction similar to that portrayed in the movie, and they leave the theater or their couch with one sentiment predominant in their minds: “This is a great movie!” Yet no global outrage nor action is seen for a worldwide mobilization campaign by viewers to stop the real-life current exploitation of the Congolese people.

This film creates space for a much needed dialogue about what we are doing to our planet Earth. It illustrates how interconnected humans are and touches on issues from the environment to spirituality. It lays bare the connection between the dehumanization of native people and corporate greed whereby profit takes priority over people.

To achieve their aim, corporations create chaos in order to access certain key resources at the expense of the indigenous people. “Avatar” addresses the most important of wars in the world today, yet it calls for a state of amnesia. Dots are left unconnected between the movie and what is happening right now in the heart of the African continent.

This is also the set of Congo’s plight. Congo is arguably the richest country on the planet in terms of natural resources. It is the storehouse of strategic and precious minerals that are vital to the functioning of modern society.

Its minerals are key to the consumer electronics, technology, automotive, aerospace and military industries. Its diamonds, gold, copper, cobalt, uranium, iron, tin, tungsten and coltan (the mineral that is central to the functioning of our cell phones, laptops and other technology and electronic devices) are coveted from China to the United States. Its rainforest, the second largest in the world after the Amazon, is vital to the fight against climate change as noted by the Sun Sentinel, while American companies such as The Blattner Group are cutting the trees down day by day in the name of profit.

This geopolitical and geostrategic battle to control Congo’s vast mineral wealth is devastating for the entire continent of Africa. Bordered by nine African countries, Congo straddles the Equator and is the fulcrum on which the entire continent swings. Whatever happens in the Congo affects the entire continent.

As foreign governments and multinationals fight to exploit Congo’s resources, a second holocaust in a century is taking place in Congo. Because of these resources, the Congolese people have faced distinct challenges since its modern founding in 1885 at the Berlin Conference when Congo was given to King Leopold II of Belgium as his own personal property.

A similar challenge transpired in the late 1800s when an estimated 10 million to 15 million Congolese lost their lives due to the world’s appetite for rubber and ivory. The difference in present-day Congo is that it is primarily U.S. allies Rwanda and Uganda who are carrying out the depopulation and control over Congolese land and resources.

The central question in the Congo, as in “Avatar,” is who is going to control the resources and for whose benefit? The answer to this question is evident in the very conflict that is the Congo – in the unsafe natural gas exploitation in Lake Kivu by American company Contour Global, mass displacement and environmental degradation of local indigenous people by Freeport McMoran, odious mining contracts by American companies such as OM Group or the illegal logging and massive exploitation of plantation workers by The Blattner Group, to name a few.

In the midst of all of this exploitation, there is a trait worth mentioning that demonstrate the resiliency and self-determination of the Congolese people. For more than 400 years, the Congolese have been fighting for sovereignty over their land. They have lost many leaders such as Kimpa Vita, who was burned at stake at age 21 with her infant son as she was accused of heresy by the Portuguese because she organized the people in the Kongo kingdom to fight for the sovereignty of the land. Another notable freedom fighter is Simon Kimbangu, who spent more years in prison fighting Belgian colonialism than Nelson Mandela did while fighting Apartheid.

Congo also saw the rise of Lumpungu II, who spoke out about sovereignty of the land and was hanged in front of his people by the king of Belgium. Congo’s first democratically elected prime minister, Patrice Lumumba, can never be forgotten, as he fought to retain Congo’s resources for the benefit of the Congolese people in particular and Africa in general. As a result of Lumumba’s stance, he was assassinated within months of taking office by Belgium in cahoots with the United States, other Western nations and local elites.

Congolese youth have initiated a worldwide mobilization campaign in partnership with young people around the world. The Jake Sullies of the Congo who have helped in the awakening of national consciousness for centuries have fortunately been Congolese. And though they have nearly all been brutally assassinated, the Congolese fight to control their own resources and determine their own affairs has not yet died.

The spirit that lives in the Congolese youth who continue to rise up for change in their nation is immortal. As self-determination in the rebuilding of their country runs through their veins, their ancestors’ history becomes a reminder of the struggle now waged for centuries.

Frantz Fanon says that each generation must find its destiny and, when found, either betray it or fulfill it. Congolese youth of today are fulfilling that destiny by breaking the silence both inside their country and globally.

Just as in Pandora, the battle of Congo is the battle of humanity, especially given Congo’s importance in the fight against climate change, its large fresh water reserves and mineral resources that are key to modern society. Being true agents of change, the youth are organizing events, winning the hearts and minds of people in their respective communities by sharing their personal stories and mobilizing support for Congolese on the ground.

Youth groups inside Congo are organizing film festivals in eastern Congo where the conflict is more acute. Others are also doing their part in the education of young Congolese through history teach-ins.

Today, in the Congo, there is a new breed of Avatars. The Congolese youth are playing that role, as they are scattered around the world in countries fueling the war in their home country. Their mission is different from that of Jake Sully. Theirs is to win the hearts and minds of the citizens of these nations to pressure their countries’ governments and corporations to stop the plunder of Congo’s resources.

With that diplomatic mission, we bear witness to a global movement in support of Congolese people energized by their youth in a quest to bring peace and stability to their home.

Ordinary people throughout the globe can play a critical role in bringing about change in the Congo. We all benefit from Congo’s wealth and have a responsibility to make sure we are not benefiting at the expense of the people.

We all benefit from Congo’s wealth and have a responsibility to make sure we are not benefiting at the expense of the people.

What is taking place in the Congo as we speak is a scar on the conscience of humanity. Congo’s problem is a worldwide problem; hence, it demands a global response. The global movement in support of the Congo is as important today as the free South Africa movement was yesterday. We all must get involved by demanding that our leaders make Congo a priority, hold our corporations accountable and support Congolese institutions fighting for peace, justice and human dignity.

As Fanon presciently noted, “Let us be sure never to forget it; the fate of all of us is at stake in the Congo.”

Kambale Musavuli is spokesperson and student coordinator for Friends of the Congo. He can be reached at kambale@friendsofthecongo.org.

Related Posts

• The challenges of Congo advocacy in the 21st century
• What the world owes Congo
• Conflict minerals: A cover for U.S. allies and Western mining interests?
• Congolese children work, fight and die for our cell phones and diamonds
• Africom’s covert war in Sudan

Return to the Source

Related Posts

1. Say no to Canadian troops for Congo and yes to Canadian diplomacy
2. Report: UN-backed Congo troops killing civilians
3. Avatar: An Extension of White Supremacy
4. Only Congolese will initiate and bring change to D.R. Congo